University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

(USC Thesis Other)

Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: 1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 1

ELEMENTS OF A 1:1 COMPUTER LAPTOP PROGRAM IN A LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HIGH SCHOOL AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION LEADERS

by

Gary P. Garcia

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2017

Copyright 2017 Gary P. Garcia

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Ruth, and my two wonderful children, Ruben
and Elias, who supported me and had patience with me while I served as a high school principal
and as a doctoral student. I also dedicate this dissertation to my parents, George and Gloria who
have continued to encourage me with my studies from elementary to graduate school and by
their commitment to college education and to the many teachers and professors who shared their
wisdom, encouragement and patience with me from elementary school through graduate school
and especially to those teachers who have inspired me as exemplary teaching role models:
Ms. Benjamin (first grade teacher), Mr. Noonan (10
th
grade teacher), Mr. Highfill and Fr. Batsis
(college), and, finally, to Dr. Escalante for recruiting me to the Rossier School of Education and
his continuing support and mentorship.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Pedro Garcia
(dissertation chair) and Dr. Rudy Castruita (dissertation course co-professor), for their
mentoring, patience and guidance throughout multiple doctoral courses and the dissertation
process. Thank you also to dissertation committee member, Dr. John Garcia.
In addition, I would also like to thank my USC colleagues for their invaluable support
and for sharing their expertise during the entire doctoral program, my research colleagues in
particular, Manny Burciaga, Robyn Anders and Anthony Zegarra, for their support, guidance and
encouragement; and my administrator colleagues who have encouraged me to apply for the USC
doctoral program.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 4
Abstract
School leaders look toward one-to-one laptop or tablet device programs as one way to meet
challenges regarding state Common Core Standards, Next Generation Science Standards and
their on-line assessments, helping students master 21
st
century skills and closing the digital
divide between students who have access to technology at home and those who do not. This
mixed-methods study focused on a public high school and its implementation of a 1:1 computer
laptop program. At the time of the study, the high school was approximately a year and a half
into implementation. The study’s research questions were (1) How does the school’s technology
infrastructure (Internet capacity, laptop upkeep/repair, etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy? (2)
To what degree did administrators, in designing a technology plan, consider teacher self-
efficacy? (3) How does the school’s professional development influence teacher self-efficacy?
And (4) how did the school district develop an instructional technology plan that includes a
budget and evaluation of the 1:1 initiative? The methodology included an on-line survey of the
high school teachers and six interviews: the principal, two district-level administrators and three
teachers. The study found it is imperative that school leaders understand the importance of
developing a detailed, multi-year plan prior to implementation that addresses factors that
influence teacher self-efficacy such as an Internet system that meets the needs of the school, a
professional development (PD) program that includes teachers’ voice in determining PD needs,
and a progress monitoring and program evaluation process that is clearly communicated to
stakeholders.
Keywords: 1:1 laptop program, instructional technology professional development,
teacher self-efficacy, instructional technology planning

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 4
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Preface 10
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 11
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 19
Significance of the Study 20
Limitations and Delimitations 20
Definition of Terms 20
Organization of the Study 21
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 23
History of Technology in Education 23
The Digital Divide 25
21
st
Century Skills 26
The Process of Change 30
Teacher Self-Efficacy 34
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework 37
Technology Plans and Policy 38
Needed Resources and Sustainability 42
Leadership and the Communication of Goals and a Vision 43
Conclusion 45
Chapter Three: Methodology 46
Restatement of Problem 46
Purpose and Research Questions 46
Design Summary 47
Participants and Setting 48
Instrumentation and Protocols 50
Data Collection Protocols 52
Ethical Considerations 54
Summary 55
Chapter Four: Findings 56
Selection of School Site and District 56
Methodology 59
Participants 60
Faculty and Administration Interviews 61
Results for Research Question One 62
Status of the Technical Infrastructure and Reliability of the School’s Internet
Connectivity 63
Status of Calls for Technical Assistance 66
Impact of the Technical Infrastructure on Teacher Self-Efficacy 68
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 6
Results for Research Question Two 69
Consultation of Teachers Prior to Implementation of 1:1 Device 70
Teacher Beliefs on the Effectiveness of the 1:1 Laptop Initiative 71
Teacher Opinion Regarding 1:1 Laptop Initiative and its Impact on their Ability to Teach
21st Century Skills 73
Teacher Understanding of Program Goals 76
Results for Research Question Three 78
Full Integration of the Laptops into Teaching and Student Learning 79
Professional Development 80
Results for Research Question Four 84
Program Progress Monitoring 86
School District’s Instructional Technology Plan Budget 88
Conclusion 90
Chapter Five: Discussion 94
Background 94
Re-Statement of the Problem 94
Purpose of the Study 95
Summary of Results 96
Research Question 1 96
Research Question 2 97
Research Question 3 98
Research question 4 99
Ancillary Findings 101
Implications 103
Limitations 106
The Case Study Method 106
Self-Reporting Bias 106
Size of the School District 106
Survey Response Rate of 42% 106
Researcher Bias 107
Representativeness of the Respondents 107
Call for Further Research 108
Conclusion 110
References 112
Appendix A: Teacher Survey Protocol 126
Appendix B: Teacher Interview Protocol 130
Appendix C: Administrator Interview Protocol 133

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 7
List of Tables
Table 1: BrightBytes Skill Survey – Diversity High School 87
Table 2: BrightBytes PD Interest Survey – Diversity High School District 87

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 8
List of Figures
Figure 1. Theories of Change Implementation Bridge 34
Figure 2. TPACK Framework 37
Figure 3. Survey Respondent Years of Teaching Experience, N=19 61
Figure 4. Respondents’ Subject Taught, N=19 61
Figure 5. Teacher Rating Regarding the Degree to which the Internet is Fast and Reliable
Enough to Use in the Classroom When All Students are Online, N=19 65

Figure 6. Teacher Understanding About how to Make a Request for Repair/Service, N=19 67

Figure 7. The School’s Response to a Technical Problem is Fast and Reliable Enough to Meet
the Needs in my Classroom, N=19 68

Figure 8. The Speed With Which Problems With the Computer and/or the Internet are Fixed,
Contributes to my Confidence in Using the Technology in my Classroom, N=19 69

Figure 9. During the Development of the 1:1 Laptop Program (Prior to Implementation),
Teachers Were Consulted (About the Program), N=19 71

Figure 10. Before the 1:1 Laptop Program Started at my School, I Believed That It Could
Contribute to Improving my Teaching and Student Learning, N=19 72

Figure 11. I Currently Believe That a 1:1 Laptop Tablet Program Can Contribute to
Improving my Teaching and Student Learning, N=19 73

Figure 12. The 1:1 Laptop Program Has Improved my Ability to Teach Students 21st Century
Skills (Innovation, Collaboration, Assessment and Analysis of Information, and
Communication), N=19 76

Figure 13. I Understand the School and/or District Goals Regarding the 1:1 Laptop or Tablet
Device Program, N=19 78

Figure 14. Before the 1:1 Laptop Project, I had Confidence in my Ability to Fully Integrate a
Laptop Into my Teaching and Learning, N=19 80

Figure 15. After the 1:1 Laptop Project, I had Confidence in my Ability to Fully Integrate a
Laptop Into my Teaching and Learning, N=19 80

Figure 16. Since the Inception of the School’s 1:1 Laptop Program, the Technology PD has
Increased/Improved my Ability to Operate the Laptop (For Example, how to use
Windows 10), N=19 81
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 9
Figure 17. Since the Inception of the School’s 1:1 Laptop Program, the Technology
Professional Development Has Increased/Improved my Confidence to use the Internet as a
Teaching and Student Learning Tool, N=19 84

Figure 18. Additional PD in the Future, Will Increase/Improve my Confidence to Fully
Integrate the Laptop Into my Teaching and Student Learning, N=19 84

Figure 19. I Understand how the School and/or District is Monitoring and Evaluating the 1:1
Laptop or Tablet Device Initiative, N=19 86

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 10
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were coauthored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with three other doctoral candidates,
Manuel Burciaga, Robyn Anders and Anthony Zegarra. Portions of chapters one through three
were co-authored. We four doctoral students met with four comprehensive urban high
schools/districts with the aim of exploring and examining how 1:1 technology initiatives were
implemented. However, the process of examination was too large for a single dissertation.
Therefore, each group member conducted a case study in a different district. As a result, the four
dissertations produced by our inquiry team collectively gathered and examined best practices in
the area of leadership resulting in outperforming programs (Burciaga, 2017; Anders, 2017;
Zegarra, 2017).

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 11
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
As school administrators and political leaders attempt to prepare students for the demands
of the global economy (Wagner, 2008) and of the new California Common Core standards that
include high-stakes accountability in the form of web-based assessments (Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium – SBAC), they increasingly look to 1:1 laptop or tablet device programs
as a solution (Lei & Zhao, 2008; Penuel, 2006). School leaders also face both internal and
external accountability to implement technology initiatives in order to address additional
challenges that schools face, such as the digital divide between students whose families can
afford to provide technology such as laptops or tablet devices and students whose families cannot
(Garland & Wotton, 2002; Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004) while also spending limited
school funds wisely (Bauter, 2013).
Despite the high-stakes nature of the abovementioned challenges, since the 1960s when
computers were first introduced as a solution to educational problems, a record of successful
technology implementation has been largely absent (Weston & Bain, 2010). A recent example of
this phenomenon was shown in the Los Angeles Unified School District’s iPad roll out. This
initiative purportedly failed because of a lack of a clear vision and, more importantly, a well
thought out plan for the implementation (Blume, 2015; Saltinski, 2014).
Therefore, the need for research on how best to design and implement a 1:1 technology
initiative is a growing imperative for American schools. The need to study and identify
successful programs so that they may be replicated is important if school systems are to see a
return on their significant instructional technology investment. Without a clear set of criteria of
what will result in successful uses of 1:1 technology initiatives, we may repeat past school
reform failures (Bleakley & Mangin, 2013; Dexter, 2011; Hannafin & Vermillion, 2008; Levin
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 12
& Schrum, 2014; McNiff, 2014; Michaelis, Stegmaier, & Sonntag, 2010; Schrum, Galizio, &
Ledesma, 2011).
A review of the literature regarding computer technology implementation revealed that
teachers’ self-efficacy regarding the technology program will have a significant impact on how
they use the technology and the overall success of the initiative (Fullan, 2007; Hew & Brush,
2007). Therefore, a focus of this study was to explore the school leaders’ decisions and planning
affected teachers’ self-efficacy in their district and school’s 1:1 computer program.
Background of the Problem
Schools today face myriad challenges that they must address. Instructional technology is
one tool educators can use to address these challenges. State and federal policies increasingly
require students to take high-stakes assessments on computers. The Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) of 2015 requires states to develop a new system of accountability criteria that will
replace the academic performance index (API) that the state of California had used through 2013
(ESSA, 2015). In addition, the accountability measures will include new criteria for annual
measurable objectives (AMOs) and define adequate yearly progress (AYP) for schools that
receive Title I funds. In turn, the new AMOs and AYP will determine which schools will be
placed into program improvement, public school choice and other sanctions for a low rating or
score. ESSA requires states to develop a new system by May 2016 and implement it by the 2017-
2018 school year. Although the eventual replacement for the API will have metrics in addition to
test scores, results of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium’s (SBAC) exam, which is the
state of California’s assessment for the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), will comprise a
large percentage of the overall accountability score or rating. In addition, in the coming years,
the SBAC will assess the Next Generation Science Standards (2016). A result of the new
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 13
accountability system is that school leaders charged with bringing students to mastery on the
standards, and students must prove mastery on a web-based test. This means that students have
to be proficient in the technology skills required to take the test in addition to simply having
mastered the standards (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007; SBAC, 2016).
Related to the importance of teaching students the computer skills required to navigate
the SBAC, education leaders must also be cognizant of the need to address the digital divide
(Garland & Wotton, 2002; Warschauer et al., 2004). Schools with students who do not have
access to family-provided technology, such as a computer or mobile tablet device, must provide
the technology so that students may build the skills necessary to be successful on the SBAC and
other tests such as the SAT and ACT.
Providing students with access to current technology will address the digital divide and
better prepare students to navigate online tests so that the assessment of their mastery of the
content standards is more reliable. In addition, technological skills are directly related to the
growing importance of 21st century skills (Mouza, 2008; Wagner, 2008). Such skills, also
necessary for success in college, as described by Wagner (2008) are (1) critical thinking and
problem-solving, (2) collaboration across networks and leading by influence, (3) agility and
adaptability, (4) initiative and entrepreneurialism, (5) effective oral and written communication,
(6) assessing and analyzing information, and (7) curiosity and imagination. Wagner coined these
the seven survival skills for careers, college, and citizenship. In addition, Wagner asserts that the
United States of America must teach its children these skills if the country is to be successful in
the world economy of the present and future.
Crucial to achieving mastery of 21st century skills and CCSS is student preparedness to
take high-stakes (for educational leaders’ accountability) online tests and closing the digital
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 14
divide. Teachers and administrators must also successfully integrate technology into teaching in
ways not previously achieved by American schools on a wide-scale in the past few decades
(Gorder, 2008; Weston & Bain, 2010). Jonassen et al. (2003) provide an example of how
educators should integrate computers into the curriculum as a teaching tool: “computers can be
used to support meaningful learning when technologies engage learners in five ways: (a)
knowledge construction, not reproduction; (b) conversations, not reception; (c) articulation, not
repetition; (d) collaboration, not competition; and, (e) reflection, not prescription” (p. 15).
Furthermore, teachers ’ technological knowledge in regard to pedagogy is a key
concept of successful integration (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009). Based on this
information, teacher technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is the intersection
of a framework that demonstrates what a teacher needs to do to effectively use technology in the
classroom (Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2013). It is this combination of content, pedagogy and
technology and their interaction that creates powerful lessons that allow the students to access
the curriculum through a differentiated way, meeting individual student needs (Koehler et al.,
2013).
In order to achieve even a moderate level of curricular integration, the literature on this
subject revealed designers of the laptop or tablet device program must plan for six issues at all
stages of the implementation phase (beginning and on-going): consideration of the change
process during the beginning implementation phase (Chauncey, 2010; Fullan, 1999, 2004, 2007,
2011; Kim et al., 2013; Levin & Schrum, 2014); adequate infrastructure such as access to the
Internet, tablet device repair and maintenance (Keppler, Weiler, & Maas, 2014; Lei & Zhao,
2008; Zheng, Arada, Niiya, & Warschauer, 2014); program monitoring and evaluation;
identification of sufficient funding to provide start-up and on-going sustainability (Keppler et al.,
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 15
2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al., 2014; Gerger, 2014); an effective professional
development program (Gorder, 2008; Keengwe et al., 2008; Keppler et al., 2014; Penuel, 2006);
and attention to how the aforementioned issues affect teacher self-efficacy, which is the focus of
this study (Kim et al., 2013; Fullan, 2007; Hew & Brush, 2007).
School site and district leadership are the main drivers behind the components of an
effective plan. School administrators must take into consideration concepts of change
management (Chauncey, 2010; Fullan, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2011; Levin & Schrum, 2014). Key
among the various theories are clarity of message, particularly the reason for the change, or
integration of a 1:1 computer initiative in this case; adequate time and resources; attention to
adult motivations; leaders’ adaptability to changing circumstances; attention to school culture(s)
and sufficient training of the users of the technology.
While planning the change management process, school leaders must also provide for
monitoring and evaluation of the program so that adjustments can be made along the way as
what is working and what is not working comes to light. Marzano, Waters and McNulty (2005)
maintained that leaders must monitor the effectiveness of school programs and be transparent
about the results. This is an important component of their theory on first and second order
change.
An example of an issue that must be monitored throughout the life of the program is the
school’s infrastructure, which includes the reliability of connectedness to the Internet, the rate at
which computers are repaired or replaced, cloud storage, technical support for computer
peripherals and software, and the speed with which problems are attended to. For example,
inadequate planning and/or funding technical support staff may result computers remaining idle
for long periods of time, which will then have a direct on impact on how and how often
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 16
computers are used, even when they are eventually repaired or replaced. Adequate infrastructure
also includes the school’s provision to teachers of the necessary software for classroom
application (Keppler et al., 2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al., 2014). In addition, the ability
to properly maintain software and hardware has a direct impact on program sustainability. For
example, repairs not made at early stages of breakdown may lead to increased cost if items
ultimately need to be replaced.
Effective monitoring and evaluation and sufficient infrastructure, in addition to the tablet
devices themselves can be expensive and take up a large percentage of a district’s overall budget.
Therefore, identification of the funds that will be necessary for a 1:1 laptop or tablet device
program must be accomplished before the project begins (Gerger, 2014; Odden & Picus, 2015).
Indeed, Marzano et al. (2005) place providing sufficient resources as a top practice or element of
effective leadership. In addition to bonds supported by a school’s community, Levin and
Schrum’s (2014) research shows that schools with successful technology programs developed
partnerships with outside institutions.
Also requiring funding and a significant factor in successful 1:1 laptop device initiatives,
according to researchers, is the quality of the professional development program (Gorder, 2008;
Keengwe, Onchwari, & Wachira, 2008; Keppler et al., 2014; Penuel, 2006). Researchers found
that effective professional development is key to many types of school issues and practices, but it
is particularly important to the implementation of technology in the classroom. Hutchison (2012)
synthesized the research on teacher training as it relates to technology. Teachers need
professional development that provides sufficient time, access to the equipment, knowledge
about both how to operate the technology and how to integrate it into teaching, and support
during all aspects of the program.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 17
Each of the six elements briefly described above had a direct impact on teacher self-
efficacy regarding the use of computers in their classrooms. Researchers found that what
teachers think about a particular reform effort is crucial to the plan’s success (Fullan, 2007). This
overall fact clearly applies to the implementation of technology (Hew & Brush, 2007). Hew and
Brush (2007) found that teacher attitudes and beliefs regarding their ability to effectively use
computers as a teaching tool are important. Likewise, negative points of view regarding the use
of or appropriateness of instructional technology can have a deleterious effect on the program
(Lane, 2003; Trimmel & Bachmann, 2004; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002). Teachers’ beliefs about
their competence in integrating technology create an implementation performance gap that must
be addressed by site leaders. Based on a national survey of language arts teachers, 82% of those
surveyed perceived a lack of professional development as a factor in their failure to integrate
technology in their classrooms (Hutchison & Reinking, 2010). It is, therefore, crucial that school
administrators are cognizant of and plan for teacher self-efficacy around the 1:1 program (Kim,
Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013).
The challenges and issues briefly discussed at the beginning of this chapter illustrate the
importance of studying the use of computers in a 1:1 format. As noted, the pressure on school
leaders to address the challenges has been clear and will only continue. Although school and
policy leaders may understand why they must work to effect change, they sometimes do not
attend to the key elements in an effective technology program and are, therefore, unable to
successfully effect the change they strive for. It was the goal of this study to add to the literature
on how school leaders can have a positive influence on teacher self-efficacy regarding using
laptop devices with their students.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 18
Statement of the Problem
Implementation of 1:1 tablet devices in school districts has been at the forefront of news
stories in the popular media, and, sometimes, the news is not good. As noted above, in addition
to Los Angeles Unified School District’s experience with its original iPad program, other
districts also received negative press, such as the Hoboken City School District’s 1:1 program
failure. Although the district had the well-being of its students in mind, specifically the closing
of the digital divide, it abandoned the project three years after it started. (Barshay, 2014). The
Hoboken superintendent indicated that the reason for the failure was poor planning.
Mistakes made in Los Angeles, Hoboken, and scores of other districts are heeded
nationally as a cautionary tale, with school districts seeking more information and research in
order to properly implement 1:1 initiatives in order to be successful. Processes should be driven
by a vision that all stakeholders see clearly. This is where educational leaders need to exercise
appropriate leadership practices and strategies in order to avoid failure. There is a value in state-
of-the-art technology being in the hands of students in order to close achievement gaps and
establish college-going environments; however, plans must be well thought out.
With the implementation of 21st century technology in the classroom and the plethora of
new software, web-based and hardware initiatives, successfully implementing technology
programs requires specific leadership and implementation approaches for success. Specifically,
1:1 tablet device implementation is one way that technology can add value to classroom learning;
however, this, as well as other technology implementation, brings about unique challenges
(Dunleavy, Dexter, & Heinecke, 2007). It is imperative that site administrators have tools to
successfully deal with the implementation of 1:1 technology initiatives so that limited funds are
spent wisely and so that program goals are fulfilled.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 19
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and gain an understanding of how the district
leaders who oversee Diversity High School (pseudonym) planned for and implemented a 1:1
computer laptop program. The study focused on how education leaders took quality professional
development into consideration; managed the change process; identified and secured adequate
funding for a multi-year program; ensured that the school’s technical infrastructure, such as
Internet connectivity, was sufficient; instituted a monitoring and evaluation process; and
considered teacher self-efficacy regarding the use of the computers.
To this end, four research questions guided this study:
 How does the school’s technology infrastructure (Internet capacity, tablet device
upkeep/repair, etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy regarding technology implementation?
 To what degree did administrators, in designing a technology plan, consider teacher self-
efficacy?
 How does the school’s instructional professional development influence teacher self-
efficacy regarding technology implementation?
 How did the school district develop a 1:1 computer laptop or tablet device technology
plan that includes a budget that provides necessary multi-year supports, monitoring and
evaluation elements?
To gather this information interviews, surveys and document review were conducted at
Diversity High School. Once the data were collected, they were analyzed and coded to identify
trends in teacher responses regarding how the 1:1 initiative was implemented and how
implementation affected their self-efficacy in terms of their use of technology.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 20
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it adds to the growing body of literature on technology
implementation and strategies for district leaders to consider in rolling out instructional
technology in their schools. In addition, by answering the questions above and identifying best
practices, school districts, administrators, and teachers may find the information in this study
useful in supporting an instructional technology initiative. Finally, the implications and
recommendations provided provide ideas and insights that may positively influence improved
overall student achievement through successful implementation of instructional technology
programs such as a 1:1 initiative.
Limitations and Delimitations
Delimitations include the fact that one school was the subject of the study and that
relatively few educators were interviewed. Limitations were present by the nature of the case
study method that focuses on one high school and school district (and that the district is smaller
than the average school district population in Los Angeles County); the limits of the self-
reporting process that may result in biased responses (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2003); the
survey response rate of 42%, which is a potential limitation in that non-respondents tend to have
lower job morale and commitment to the program than do respondents (Rogelberg et al., 2000);
and the limitation that because only three teachers were interviewed, a full representativeness of
the faculty was not achieved.
The limitations reduce the generalizability of the findings due to a lack of depth of
perspective that a larger study would entail.
Definition of Terms
The terms below are used throughout the study:
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 21
 1:1 technology: Any form of computer laptop or tablet device a student has access to
throughout the school day.
 Infrastructure: The components necessary to sustain the technology initiative, such as
Internet bandwidth and reliability, quality and speed with which hard and software
problems are addressed, etc.
 Implementation: The process of putting a technology initiative in place.
 Integration: Use of technology as a curricular/teaching tool.
 Professional Development: District- or school-sponsored teacher training program or in-
service.
 Resources: Funding, physical or human capital dictated or distributed by the school
district.
 Self-efficacy: The belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action required to manage prospective situation (Bandura, 1997).
 Instructional Technology: A tablet device or laptop used by students as a learning tool.
 Technology or infrastructure support: District or school personnel designated to maintain
technology at the schools, including Internet connectivity.
 Vision/Mission: A district and/or school’s central goals regarding a 1:1 initiative.
Organization of the Study
This study was organized into five chapters, with an overview, context, and purpose of
the study in the first chapter. A review of current literature on change theory, teacher self-
efficacy, technology planning/district policy, leadership and sustainability is included in the
second chapter. The methodology for surveying and interviewing teachers and site and district
administrators is outlined in Chapter Three, and the data gathered through this process are
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 22
discussed in Chapter Four. The study concludes in Chapter Five with a discussion of findings,
implications, and recommendations regarding 1:1 technology implementation in 21st century
classrooms.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 23
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
As early as the 1920s and through the 1950s, educators saw the first use of electronic
technology that could be used for instruction in schools in the form of radio and television.
According to Cuban (1986), some school administrators hoped that instructional radio and
television would help address the teacher shortages of the time. However, the lack of
interactivity eventually quelled notions that radio or television would effectively replace teachers
(Cuban, 1986; Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). The idea that teachers could be replaced with
computer technology, such as through online learning, is still the thinking on the part of some
policy makers in contemporary times (Welsh, Wanberg, Brown, & Simmering, 2003).
History of Technology in Education
Early computers produced by IBM’s Teaching Machines Project were introduced into the
educational setting in the late 1950s. This was the beginning of what Aslan and Reigeluth (2011)
called the Mainframe Period. Venesky and Osin (1991) broke up this broad period into
subgroups called the age of engineers, the acronym age and the age of titans (because of
significant research funding). During this period, scientists introduced myriad programs with
names such as SOCRATES (System for Organizing Content to Review and Teach Educational
Subjects) and CLASS (Computer-based Laboratory for Automation of School Systems), which
were drill-based or tutoring programs (Silberman, 1962; Venezky & Osin, 1991). Other
programs with long acronym names were also introduced and experimented with during this time
and were largely in the same order of content practice, rather than for problem-solving and
complex thinking (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Although researchers had various labels for this
period (the late 1950s through the late 1970s), introductory period may best describe it. During
this period, the idea that computers can be used in classrooms to enhance learning was born.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 24
During the late 1970s through the 1990s, labeled as the Microcomputer Period (Aslan &
Reigeluth, 2011) or the Age of Small Wonders (Venezky & Osin, 1991), educators saw the
advent of desktop computers of improving quality and lowering prices (compared to the
Mainframe Period). During this time, as computers became more affordable, educators and
parents drew the conclusion that students would need to learn how to use computers because
computers were becoming ubiquitous in the workplace (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). As a result,
schools increased acquisition of desktop or microcomputers throughout this time (Schonfield,
1995). However, the cost of desktops contributed to computers being installed in computer labs
rather than classrooms throughout schools. In addition, the overall lack of quality professional
development for teachers also slowed the integration of computers into the curriculum beyond
the use of word processing, spreadsheets and to reinforce previously taught content (Demeulle,
Lowther, & Morrison, 1998; Jonassen, 1996). In addition to the applications mentioned above,
educators increasingly saw how computers could be used as a tool for teaching and learning
(Aslan & Reigeluth, 2011) and how they could help students with disabilities access the
curriculum (Schmidt, Weinstein, Niemic, & Walberg, 1985; Woodward & Reith, 1997).
Beginning in the early 2000s, termed the Internet Period by Aslan and Reigeluth (2001),
the maturing of the Internet changed the way computers were used in society and in schools.
Overall, the first 15 years of this century have been marked by tremendous growth in Internet use
in schools. For example, from 1994 to 2005, Wells and Lewis (2007) estimated that the
percentage of schools with at least one point of connection to the Internet grew from 3% to 95%.
The next phase of the Internet in schools was marked by wireless connectivity (Bichelmeyer &
Molenda, 2006). One result in the increase of Internet connections in schools is the profound
impact it had on the growth of curricular content available to teachers that used to be accessible
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 25
only in books and video material (that had to be purchased). Furthermore, Internet and wireless
access gave rise to the use of collaborative digital tools such as blogs and other on-line postings
(Brown & Green, 2008; Charnitski & Harvey, 2007; Jones, 2003) and course/learning
management systems where students and parents can access grades and homework assignments
(Brown & Green, 2007; Simonson, 2007).
Since computer’s introduction to schools in the 1960s, one factor that generally stifled
technology’s ability to transform teaching and learning in a way that educators and policy
makers had hoped for is the overall lack of quality professional development provided to
teachers (Bichelmeyer & Molenda, 2006, 2006; Earle, 2002).
The Digital Divide
Since the advent of instructional technology in schools, educators’ ability to provide
equal access to all students has been lacking. A digital divide has generally existed between
schools and districts in affluent communities and those in poor communities (Garland & Wotton,
2002; Warschauer et al., 2004). Students in underprivileged communities have traditionally had
limited access to technology, including computers and software. Prior research identified this
problem, including that of Garland and Wotton (2002) who stated that, because of their access to
technology, the students most likely to “successfully compete in the global marketplace will be
educated, white students from wealthy suburban schools” (p. 123). Their research also
demonstrated that the difference between a high-tech and low-tech school depends on the
training teachers receive regarding the instructional uses of the Internet and the advances in
interactive software. General access and teacher professional development are the two largest
contributors to the resurgent problem of the digital divide in American schools (Garland &
Wotton, 2002).
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 26
The technological inequalities poor students contend with at school become an obstacle at
home as well. Recent reviews of the available literature show there are major gaps in home
access to digital media and technology (Warschauer, Matuchniak, Pinkard, & Gadsden, 2010).
The inequalities in instructional technology use at school and at home created even greater
differences in student learning outcomes:
Though technology-related access, use, and outcomes are difficult to measure. All
available evidence suggests they are critically important factors in shaping social futures.
As we rethink how to measure evidence of equitable resources, conditions, and outcomes
of student learning, continued close attention to the role of technology in both school and
out-of-school environments is urgently needed (Warschauer et al., 2010, p. 219).
Many school boards and district leaders across the nation face the digital divide within
their districts and, therefore, must make decisions regarding equity and social justice when
providing technology to schools. Furthermore, research demonstrates that school districts
implementing 1:1 laptop or tablet device programs are usually those in which the majority of
students already have access to such technology in their homes, so public schools often do not
provide access for students who need it most.
21
st
Century Skills
Aside from concern for equal access to technology, there is urgency in the United States
to improve the quality of education, close the achievement gap, and equip students with 21st
century knowledge and skills (Mouza, 2008; Wagner, 2008). The demand for graduates with 21st
century skills and knowledge is a paramount issue for educational leaders (Larson & Miller,
2011; Rosefsky-Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 27
Technology integration in classrooms is a practice touted by many districts as the way to
prepare students for the 21st century despite research showing that much of the technology use is
unsophisticated and not well integrated into the curriculum (Harris et al., 2009). According to
Hew and Brush (2007), technology implementation or integration in K-12 schools typically
includes the use of computing devices such as desktop computers, laptops, tablets, software,
and/or the Internet in K-12 schools for instructional purposes. By 2010, approximately 6,000
schools across the nation had implemented a 1:1 laptop program to provide a computing tablet
device per each student for educational purposes (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak, & Peterson,
2010).
Specific to 1:1 technology tablet devices, school districts that implemented 1:1 initiatives
reported the goal of their initiative was to prepare students with 21st century skills (Penuel,
2006). Critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity are 21st century skills that
1:1 tablet device implementation could facilitate. A variety of perspectives influence the
dialogue regarding 21st century skills. Wagner (2008) described 21st century skills as the
following: (1) critical thinking and problem-solving, (2) collaboration across networks and
leading by influence, (3) agility and adaptability, (4) initiative and entrepreneurialism, (5)
effective oral and written communication, (6) assessing and analyzing information, and (7)
curiosity and imagination. Wagner coined this set of skills the seven survival skills for careers,
college, and citizenship. These skills refer to other works of his, which indicate a global
achievement gap.
In addition to Wagner’s set, the Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21) developed a
framework for 21st century student outcomes and support systems (P21, 2016). Their 21st
century skills framework includes four themes: (a) key subjects and 21st Century themes, (b)
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 28
learning and innovation skills, (c) information, media and technology skills, and (e) life and
career skills. TP21 breaks the framework into the following subcategories as well:
1. Key Subjects and 21st Century Themes

a. Mastery of the core subjects (ex. language arts, math, science, history/social
sciences, etc.)
b. 21st Century Themes: Global Awareness, Financial, Economic, Business and
Entrepreneurial Literacy, Civic Literacy, Health Literacy, and Environmental
Literacy
2. Learning and Innovation Skills (The 4-Cs)
a. Creativity and Innovation
b. Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
c. Communication
d. Collaboration
3. Information, Media, and Technology Skills
a. Information Literacy
b. Media Literacy
c. ICT (Information, Communications and Technology) Literacy
4. Life and Career Skills
a. Flexibility and Adaptability
b. Initiative and Self-Direction
c. Social and Cross-Cultural Skills
d. Productivity and Accountability
e. Leadership and Responsibility
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 29
An abundance of teaching and learning standards links technology use in the classroom
to acquisition of 21st century skills (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE],
2016; International Technology Education Association, 2007; Moersch, 2013). The International
Technology Education Association (2007) established international standards for technology
literacy that focus on instructional technology outcomes and the need to prepare students for the
21st century workplace. ISTE (2016) created standards that were once known as the National
Education Technology Standards for students. These standards focused on various education
stakeholders such as students, teachers, administrators, and computer science educators. ISTE
standards provide guidelines linked to the Common Core Standards to provide educators a means
to engage students in the acquisition of 21st century skills.
The third set of widely used standards is that provided in the level of teaching innovation
(LoTi) framework (Moersch, 2013b). The standards set in LoTi are essentially a set of
frameworks used to evaluate, assess, and direct educators as they implement technology and
technology-based instruction. The LoTi standards include frameworks for personal computer use
(Moersch, 2015b), current instructional practices (Moersch, 2015a), and the H.E.A.T. framework
(Moersch, 2013a). The H.E.A.T. framework is a set of look-for(s), which include (a) higher
order thinking, (b) engaged learning, (c) authentic connections and (d) technology use. The
various standards and frameworks align with the Common Core Standards.
Attention to both 21st century skills standards and technology standards is vital to
successful technology implementation. Richardson (2013) warned that putting technology first
by simply adding a layer of expensive tools on top of the traditional curriculum does nothing to
address the needs of contemporary learners. This is where strategies to successfully implement
technology in secondary classrooms need to be analyzed. According to Weston and Bain (2010),
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 30
the goal should move beyond substituting a book with a digital one or paper report cards with
grades posted online, as “none of these equivalents addresses the core activity of teaching and
learning. Each merely automates the practices of the prevailing paradigm (a) non-differentiated
large-group instruction, (b) access to information in classrooms” (Weston & Bain, 2010 p. 10).
Although integration of technology with teaching and learning should be the goal of 1:1
technology initiatives, it is not often seen by researchers (Gorder, 2008). Bebell and O’Dwyer
(2010) reported the purpose of 1:1 implementation should be to increase student and teacher
technology use, increase student engagement and interest level, and modest increases in student
achievement, as these goals are consistent with teaching pedagogy. A synthesis of the research
regarding learner-centered classrooms and technology integration by An and Reigeluth (2012)
revealed the following traits of learner-centered classrooms: (a) personalized and customized
learning, (b) social and emotional support, (c) self-regulation, (d) collaborative and authentic
learning experiences, and (e) assessment for learning.
School boards and communities pressure educational leaders to find and implement new
innovations which lead to the adoption and implementation of digital technology products and
services that may not have been needed (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012). Each school district must
identify how technology can support its academic goals and address its specific needs in order to
effectively implement new technology (Lee & Winzenried, 2009). It is prudent for decision
makers to first focus on the learning desired for students and, then, on how a particular tablet
device may best serve this purpose (Richardson, 2013).
The Process of Change
Fullan (1999) stated that the change process involves many moving components that
cannot be controlled, but only guided, and stated that educational change is technically simple
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 31
but socially complex. Fullan’s change model suggests there are two approaches to educational
reform: an innovation-focused approach and a capacity-building focus. An innovation-focused
approach to educational change includes four factors: initiation (adoption), implementation,
institutionalization (sustainability), and outcomes (evaluation) (Fullan, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2011).
In the innovation-focused approach, innovation relates to the content of a given program or
product, which is traceable to measure its success and failure. In the capacity-building focus,
innovation involves the capacity of an organization to engage in continuous improvement where
the culture of the institution is examined. The capacity building focus identifies stakeholders as
capacity builders regarding each stakeholder’s experience in relation to the process of
educational change and ideas as to what each role could or should do about educational change
(Fullan, 2007). The stakeholders who would be identified in Fullan’s framework include
teachers, principals, and district administrators.
Ensminger and others (Ensminger & Surry, 2008; Ensminger, Surry, Porter, & Wright,
2004) define implementation as the process of introducing an innovation into an organization
and fostering its use. When using a five-phase generic instructional design process consisting of
analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, their research identified four
social contexts that must be taken into consideration when designing an implementation plan:
organizational factors and individual factors as well as instructional and support environments.
Ely (1990) develop tailored plans through implementation profiles for organizations’
instructional innovations. Ely’s framework included eight conditions to consider: dissatisfaction
with status quo, adequate time, resources, knowledge and skills, rewards and incentives,
participation, commitment, and leadership.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 32
In regard to specific strategies to be used during the implementation process, it is
important to eliminate distractions, as they cause change efforts to be fractured, disorganized,
partly implemented, and poorly assessed (Chauncey, 2010). Chauncey’s (2010) research outlined
six characteristics that an organization must consider relative to attempting educational change:
(a) pursues new ways to accelerate improvement, (b) addresses an internal audience, (c) focuses
on doing a few things well, (d) integrates a few key initiatives, (e) requires people to work
tougher in new ways, and (f) is continually reconsidered and adapted.
Another important aspect to consider during implementation is how to evaluate the
model’s effectiveness. Hall (2010, 2013) reported the importance of using a change model in
order to achieve high-quality implementation: “The continuing challenge with technology
innovations is to move beyond their adoption by technology enthusiasts and scale up to wide
spread use.” (p. 231). Hall created four questions, based on change models, for school leaders to
ask themselves as they implement new technology:
1. How can the change process be facilitated to achieve high levels of implementation in
classrooms and across a school?
2. What factors and approaches can be applied for achieving widespread use?
3. What is the extent of implementation with each individual and school?
4. How do outcomes vary with extent of implementation?
These questions were used by Hall to establish a framework termed the implementation
bridge identifying three factors to monitor during implementation: levels of use, innovation
configurations, and stages of concern. The facilitating factor for all three of these is the
leadership at the site.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 33
Hall’s (2013) framework can be utilized to monitor and evaluate the implementation
model used by districts and/or schools to determine how the district and site-level leadership
positively contributed to the factors identified in the various change theories previously
described. The final step in the implementation bridge (Hall, 2010) is to find methods to monitor
and guide the organization’s culture so that the implementation of 1:1 technology devices is a
sustainable mission and the relationship between the organization’s culture and the vision of
district leadership are mutually beneficial.
Another group of researchers, Hartnell, Ou, and Kinicki (2011) provided an analysis of
the Competing Values Framework to indicate relationships between three culture types and
measures of effectiveness. The three culture types are referred to as clan (collaborative),
adhocracy (creative), hierarchy (control focused), and market (competitive). These culture types
are influenced by dimensions referred to as focus, structure, and means-ends. The framework is
utilized to describe the relationship between culture types and effectiveness criteria for
organizations. The study provided a meta-analysis to inform executive leaders of the strategies
which will fit the culture of their organization. Their research identifies values and behaviors
consistent with the desired culture of full technology immersion. Their meta-analysis also
identified strategies to reinforce the mission of 1:1 technology tablet device implementation as
well as establish a culture which will sustain the implementation goals.
The theories and ideas regarding technology implementation and educational change are
similar in many aspects. Each theory offers a unique perspective on the role of leadership,
culture, motivation, knowledge, and organizational factors (Ely, 1990; Ensminger et al., 2004;
Fullan, 2007; Hall, 2010, 2013; Hartnell et al., 2011). It is vital that educational leaders know
these theories regarding institutional change to plan and create policy which will facilitate high
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 34
levels of implementation of any new technologies. Moreover, it is imperative that school leaders
incorporate a change management process in their overall instructional technology plans. Figure
1 presents a conceptual framework of the different theories and how they might best relate and/or
influence each other throughout the implementation of technology.

Figure 1. Theories of Change Implementation Bridge
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teachers are the gatekeepers to what happens in their classrooms; educational change is
dependent on what teachers do and think (Fullan, 2007). In addition, teachers’ technological
knowledge regarding pedagogy is a key concept in successful integration (Harris et al., 2009).
Bebell and O’Dwyer (2010) asserted that teachers play a critical role in the effective
implementation of 1:1 technology initiatives. Positive attitudes of the teachers integrating
technology into their lessons are essential in a successful implementation. Hew and Brush (2007)
stated that negative teacher attitudes and beliefs towards technology can be a major barrier to
technology integration. Teachers who view technology as merely a way to keep kids busy do not
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 35
see the relevance of technology to the designated curriculum (Hew & Bush, 2007). Case studies
of teachers in laptop programs showed their beliefs about students, the potential role of
technology in learning, and the availability of high-quality digital content influence the degree to
which they use laptops with students (Lane, 2003; Trimmel & Bachmann, 2004; Windschitl &
Sahl, 2002). It is critical that educational leaders understand how teachers’ beliefs about the
value of technology translate into classroom practices (Kim et al., 2013).
While teacher opinion about a 1:1 project are important factors in determining program
success, the need for professional development or teacher training is a prevalent finding in the
research (Gorder, 2008; Keengwe et al., 2008; Keppler et al., 2014; Penuel, 2006). On a national
survey of language arts teachers, 82% perceived a lack of professional development as a factor in
their failure to integrate technology in their classrooms (Hutchison & Reinking, 2010). In
addition, Hutchison (2012) found that 43% of teachers stated that lack of access to equipment
before and after the professional development session hindered using technology in the
classroom and that more time was needed with the devices to develop effective high-quality
lessons. Respondents identified four factors they believe would contribute effectively to their
own professional development: (a) time to explore, practice, and prepare for literacy instruction
into which they integrate technology; (b) access to equipment during and after professional
development; (c) access to higher level knowledge, knowledgeable presenters, and relevant
background knowledge; and (d) on-going, follow-up, and small group support (Hutchison,
2012).
The research is clear that teacher training should not only include how to use the
technology itself, but also the more difficult aspect of integrating it into the curriculum
(Keengwe et al., 2008; Keppler et al., 2014; Penuel, 2006) and of using the technology in the
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 36
classroom to do what had not been possible without the technology to change pedagogy to use
the technology appropriately (Keppler et al., 2014; Li, 2010). The amount of technology training,
along with time spent beyond the contractual work week, in addition to an openness to change
best predicted classroom technology use, regardless of teaching philosophy or beliefs about one’s
teaching ability (Vannatta & Fordham, 2003).
Fullan (2007) stated that, for teachers, “the degree of change is strongly related to the
extent to which teachers interact with one another, and to others providing technical help and
peer support and pressure” (p. 138). Fullan stated that a strong indicator of implementation
success is collegiality among teachers. Creating professional development time in the school day
to share ideas and have focused meetings, sharing challenges and successes in implementation,
strengthens the fabric of teacher buy-in and ownership in the process (Chesbro & Boxler, 2010).
Effective professional development regarding instructional technology involves a system that
involves teachers in designing the training (Gorder, 2008; Penuel, 2006) and where teachers train
each other to apply to instructional technology in their classrooms (Penuel, 2006). The
importance of this piece of commitment to the professional development process is critical due to
the fact that teachers control how technology is accessed by students and used in the classroom
during the school day (Zuber & Anderson, 2013).
Once there is an understanding of the social contexts of professional development, the
next step is to consider the instructional demands required of teachers to implement a 1:1
technology laptop or tablet device program in their classrooms. Professional development
programs which incorporated 21st century skills with laptops were most beneficial to teachers.
Those skills included extended problems and projects that use real-world resources, student
collaboration, and computer tools to reach solutions or create final projects (Penuel, 2006).
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 37
Creating instruction for teaching these types of skills with technology requires a vast amount of
instructional knowledge.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework
Brantley-Dias and Ertmer (2013) utilized the TPACK framework to determine its
effectiveness in conceptualizing what teachers need in order to achieve meaningful technology-
enabled learning. Brantley-Dias and Ertmer’s research identified the need for future clarification
of the TPACK model and other conceptual models which attempt to provide clarity on teacher
knowledge for successful implementation of technology. However, the TPACK is still widely
accepted as the best model for conceptualizing the knowledge teachers should have to implement
technology (Harris et al., 2009).
TPACK is represented in Figure 2 as it incorporates the areas of pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK), and technological pedagogical
knowledge (TPK).

Figure 2. TPACK Framework
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 38
The TPACK framework is based on Shulman’s (1986, 1987) idea of pedagogical content
knowledge (PCK). The new TPACK framework emphasizes the importance of dynamic
relationships among the original components of Shulman’s PCK framework. Koehler and
Koehler (2009) expanded the framework by identifying pedagogical content knowledge (PCK),
technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and
TPACK in addition to content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge
(Harris et al., 2009; Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007). The TPACK framework demonstrates the
relationships among content, technology, and pedagogy and shows that technology integration
requires much more than technical skills (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Technology Plans and Policy
Before adopting a technology tablet device or innovation, decision makers should
consider how the 1:1 environment would affect resources such as funding, infrastructure,
professional development and, especially, stakeholders’ experiences, as these factors
significantly affect the implementation process (Gerger, 2014). Research, for decades, supports
the idea that adoption of new innovation tends to fail at the implementation level because of a
lack of a plan or policy to implement successfully (Fullan, 2007; Hall, 2010; Levin & Schrum,
2014). A good place to start for any new technology plan or policy is the TPACK framework
(Harris et al., 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Koehler, Shin, & Mishra, 2011; Thompson &
Mishra, 2007). What the TPACK does, according to Brantley-Dias and Ertmer (2013) is open up
a dialogue about the connection of policy to practice by providing a starting point for districts
and schools to communicate about implementation plans and policy with new technology.
Bauter’s (2013) policy research found that leaders failed to identify policies that drive
practice. In fact, the only written policy found for schools was the technology plan for each
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 39
campus, which was adopted by the local board of education. These plans lacked many of the
details necessary for implementation and for application to instruction and the classroom.
Further, Bauter (2013) found that most principals were solely in charge of implementation at
their site and no written plan or policy was drafted. This often resulted in having the success and
sustainability of the program tied to one person and, if that person left the school, the likelihood
of the program’s continued successful would be doubtful. Subsequent findings demonstrated
that, if no plan or policy were in place, there were no means to connect policy to practice,
communicate policy or plans, or find research-based theoretical foundations in policy. Bauter’s
findings were substantiated by one principal’s statement: “Without anything specific to inspect,
we’re still guiding movement as opposed to inspecting progress. And I think that would be a key
piece as we continue to progress down this 1:1 implementation.” (Bauter, 2013, p. 94)
Zucker (2009) developed a philosophical question in regards to one-to-one laptop
initiatives: is there monetary value on learning? He questioned what outcomes educational
leaders expect: increased test scores, acquisition of 21st century skills, basic computing skills,
increased student motivation and attendance, and/or increased equity of access. Each of these
outcomes requires a philosophical commitment to their value, and the outcome must be a part of
the plan or policy. According to Zucker, “the responsibility to integrate scattered and sometimes
contradictory research findings and to decide how to spend education dollars rests with the
public and key policymakers. With limited research available, their judgment is especially
critical” (p. 384). Much like Zucker, Penuel (2006) asked questions regarding the philosophical
beliefs and values of the educational leaders making plans to implement a 1:1 technology
initiative. Penuel, in a-analysis of the literature on 1:1 computer initiatives, observed that
education leaders’ goals and vision are as follows:
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 40
For some initiatives, the primary focus is on improving academic achievement
with the use of technology. For others, the goal is increasing equity of access to
digital resources and reducing the digital divide. For still other initiatives,
including the statewide initiative in Maine, the goal is increasing the economic
competitiveness of the region by preparing its students more effectively for
today’s technology-saturated workplaces. Finally, some initiatives seek, by
introducing ubiquitous access to computers, to effect a transformation in the
equality of instruction. Many of the initiatives focused on transforming teaching
seek specifically to make instruction more “student-centered,” that is, more
differentiated, problem- or project-based, and demanding of higher-order thinking
skills. (p. 335).
Establishing a plan and policy requires budgeting. Multiple stakeholders will want to
know if the investment of dollars is worth the educational outcomes. In order to measure these
budgetary decisions, clear expectations must be set (Bauter, 2013). Penuel (2006) called for more
research regarding core aspects of the technology program design and implementation plan. He
stated that policymakers need such information to establish priorities for external funding
opportunities and guide programs on the ways they ought to structure professional development
opportunities for teachers and provide technical support.
State funding formulas should also be considered when budgeting or making decisions
regarding a new technology initiative. Odden and Picus (2015) recommended Wyoming fund
technology at $250.00 per student based on average daily membership. They broke down the
costs per student into the following categories:
 Computer hardware: $71
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 41
 Operating systems, productivity and non-instructional software: $72
 Network equipment, printers and copiers: $55
 Instructional software and additional classroom hardware: $52
The funding model provided by Odden and Picus (2015) proposes adequate funding
levels for districts to provide upgrades, maintenance, servers, operating systems and productivity
software, network equipment, student administrative systems, and financial systems software.
The funding formula, which was calibrated in 2015, allows a school to have one computer for
every three students. If a school district wanted to fund a 1:1 laptop initiative, it would need to
increase the base funding of $71 for computer hardware per student to $212 and double the
funding for the other categories, raising the total funding from $250 per student to $571 (Odden
& Picus, 2015). However, these funding formulas do not include professional development costs,
which have been a critical component of this literature review.
Overbay, Mollette, and Vasu (2011) in their article, “A Technology Plan,” provide five
lessons for administrators to keep in mind as they implement new technology initiatives: (a) it’s
not about the technology, (b) let the plan fit the school, (c) build in professional development, (d)
give collaboration its due, and (e) become turnover-proof. In addition, as part of any successful
plan for implementation, Overbay et al. offered two unique recommendations: that
administrators provide professional development over the summer for teachers on incorporating
new technology into instruction and that administrators remain focused on teachers and students,
as opposed to technology, throughout the implementation. The sustainability of any technology
initiative is ultimately dependent on educators’ vision and skill (Overbay et al., 2011). Levin and
Schrum (2014) reported that planning in all eight of the successful schools they studied included
two crucial factors. First, administrators put the technology they were planning to use with
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 42
students into the hands of teachers first. Second, the school leaders involved families in the plans
for their technology initiatives, clearly communicating what having new technology would mean
for students and families early on. Additionally, districts typically start 1:1 initiatives by issuing
a laptop in a specific grade level and then allowing students to matriculate into advanced grade
levels with the tablet device. In this manner, districts can build a 1:1 computer program over a
series of years (Odden & Picus, 2015).
Needed Resources and Sustainability
When considering a 1:1 initiative, it is also imperative that districts audit their current
infrastructure for online computing. Because of the necessity for Internet access, cloud
computing and storage, and web-based applications, Internet access is vital (Keppler et al., 2014;
Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al., 2014). Regarding access to the Internet, Odden and Picus (2015)
found that WIFI or wireless systems were more cost effective than hard wiring ports in
individual classrooms. Therefore, educational leaders should determine the state of their
infrastructure before making decisions about hardware and/or software adoptions.
Levin and Schrum (2014) described the need for partnerships in their findings of schools
that successfully implemented technology. They described partnerships as sources of funding
and support for grants but also as resources for student internships, collaboration on grant
applications, sponsorship of special projects or competitions, and locations for summer
externships for faculty. In addition, these partnerships provided support in the form of
membership on planning committees and advisory boards as well.
An example of this in action was provided Penuel (2006). A variety of laptop programs
utilized students for technical support to troubleshoot routine problems with machines and
classroom support for technical problems (Penuel 2006). An example of this was a laptop
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 43
initiative in Maine’s that used “iTeams” that consisted of students available to help with laptop
problems (Silvernail & Harris, 2003; Silvernail & Lane, 2003).
Insufficient technical support can contribute to turning a teacher with a positive outlook
on a 1:1 program into a skeptic (Keppler et al., 2014). Technical support is critical to continued
implementation and sustainable use of new technology. Teachers report having increased use
when all students’ laptops work because they do not have to create two assignments: one for
students with laptops and another for students without (Davis, Garas, Hopstock, Kellum, &
Stephenson, 2005; Gaynor & Fraser, 2003; Zucker & McGhee, 2005). The same is true of
reliable wireless Internet connectivity as teachers plan lessons and provide classroom instruction.
Teacher attitude toward the use of technology in the classroom can also be influenced by the
quality of a school or district’s technical support of a 1:1 program. Researchers found this to be
another important indicator of a successful program (Keppler et al., 2014; Penuel, 2006).
Leadership and the Communication of Goals and a Vision
Principals are the gatekeepers to what happens at their schools; educational change is
dependent on what administrators say and believe (Fullan 2007). An important driver in all
factors contributing to a 1:1 technology initiative’s success is leadership, as the communication
of goals and a vision for the use of new technology are paramount to its success (Bleakley &
Mangin, 2013; Dexter, 2011; Hannafin & Vermillion, 2008; Levin & Schrum, 2014; McNiff,
2014; Michaelis et al., 2010; Schrum et al., 2011). Levin and Schrum (2014), based on a
literature review, described the style of leadership and approach to implementation they saw
most beneficial to program success. They concluded that “shared or distributed leadership, which
engages many stakeholders in major improvement roles, and instructional leadership, in which
administrators take responsibility for shaping improvements at the classroom level” (Levin &
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 44
Schrum, 2014, p. 642), are ideal leadership traits or styles when implementing new technology
initiatives. However, these styles are most applicable when taking a systems approach to explain
the design and plan of technology implementation. The results of Levin and Schrum’s (2014, p.
642) cross-case analysis of eight intrinsic case studies of leadership in exemplary schools and
districts recognized for effectively using technology for school improvement concluded that, in
order for positive change to occur, leaders need to simultaneously address seven factors:
1. Having a clear vision/mission and acting on the principles of disturbed leadership
2. Creating structures and processes of technology infrastructure and support
3. Providing ongoing high quality professional development that is not one-size-fits-all
4. Revising the curriculum to promote 21st-century and student-centered instructional
practices
5. Focusing on and improving school culture
6. Identifying realistic and sustainable resources of funding by thinking outside the box
7. Building partnerships with parents, families, and community members, as well as with
businesses, industries, and colleges or universities.
Levin and Schrum (2014) concluded that exemplary schools and districts develop cultural
norms around how they interact with technology, which includes expecting everyone to plunge
in, using the method of trial and error, and being tolerant of mistakes as well as using technology
to open doors for students to opportunities they might not have at home, and to do so in a
student-centered way.
Again, the research stated it is not about the technology. It is about the people; in
particular, it is about leading and organizing stakeholders (Bleakley & Mangin, 2013; Dexter,
2011; Michaelis et al., 2010; Overbay et al., 2011). Administrators play a role in nurturing a
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 45
positive culture within the organization. Immediate supervisors must provide support and
encouragement, answer questions, address concerns, and serve as role models for using the
innovation (Ensminger et al., 2004; Ensminger & Surry, 2008). Many of the theories of change
require leaders to establish a dissatisfaction with the status quo, which refers to an emotional
discomfort resulting from the use of current processes or technology that is perceived as
inefficient, ineffective, or not competitive (Ensminger & Surry, 2008). Ertmer and Ottenbreit-
Leftwich (2010) identified key variables associated with teacher change and technology
integration that included knowledge, pedagogical beliefs, and school culture, all of which are
dependent on school leadership. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) found these three factors
all play a part in whether teachers actually integrate technology into their instructional practices.
They believe these three factors have a reciprocal relationship in that they continually influence
each other. Teacher participation is key and administrators should facilitate buy-in amongst the
staff. Overbay et al. (2011) state that the plan must fit the school, so it is important to take the
school’s pulse.
Conclusion
The literature is clear that teacher self-efficacy regarding the effective use of laptops as
instructional tools is a crucial element in a successful 1:1 project. Furthermore, researchers found
that many factors influence teacher self-efficacy: the quality of the infrastructure, including
access to the Internet; professional development that meets teachers’ needs; program outcome
goals that are clear to teachers; progress monitoring of the goals and adequate funding to
adequately implement the aforementioned elements. In addition to incorporating these elements,
education leaders must develop a comprehensive plan that includes attention to change
management strategies.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 46
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter commences with a restatement of the problem, purpose, and research
questions. A synopsis of the methodological design and discussions of the participants and
setting, data collection, data analysis, and ethical considerations follow accordingly. The chapter
concludes with a summary and a preview of Chapters Four and Five.
Restatement of Problem
As education leaders attempt to address myriad challenges, such as improving student
performance, closing the digital divide, teaching students skills necessary to succeed in the 21st
century, and mastering Common Core and Next Generation Science Standards, many school
administrators and education policy makers consider attempt to meet them through programs that
provide all students a laptop or tablet device. However, because large-scale technology
endeavors that resulted in failure were covered widely by news media and brought the scorn of
politicians and parents, education leaders need best practices and successful instructional
technology program models to emulate. In fact, researchers found that lack of adequate planning
to address the many factors crucial to a well-developed program leads to unsuccessful
instructional technology programs (Bauter, 2013; Fullan, 2007; Hall, 2010; Levin & Schrum,
2014).
Purpose and Research Questions
This study identified teacher self-efficacy as a major factor in the implementation of 1:1
technology. Implementation of new technology could be a daunting challenge financially and
pedagogically for educational leaders. The study also aimed to identify and gain an
understanding of the role of school and district leadership in planning and policy considerations,
as well as sustainability, in implementing a 1:1 technology initiative. Four areas of technology
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 47
implementation were explored and addressed herein: infrastructure, specific planning for self-
efficacy, professional development, and resources and progress monitoring vision. The following
research questions were identified and investigated as means of illustrating educational leaders’
traits that would facilitate 1:1 technology implementation and whether teacher self-efficacy plays
a role:
 How does the school’s technology infrastructure (Internet capacity, tablet/laptop device
upkeep/repair, etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy regarding technology implementation?
 To what degree did administrators, in designing a technology plan, consider teacher self-
efficacy?
 How does the school’s instructional professional development influence teacher self-
efficacy regarding technology implementation?
 How did the school district develop a technology plan that includes a budget that
provides necessary multi-year supports, monitoring and evaluation elements?
Design Summary
This study used a mixed-methods research approach in that both qualitative and
quantitative data were collected and analyzed. The mixed-methods approach was used because
of the complexities of analyzing data that resulted from interviews and surveys to provide a
better understanding of the problem. Data analysis was based on Creswell’s six steps for
conducting a study:
1. Identifying a research problem
2. Reviewing the literature
3. Specifying a purpose for research
4. Collecting data
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 48
5. Analyzing and interpreting the data
6. Reporting and evaluating research
This chapter specifically addresses steps four, five, and six. The mixed methodology
included quantitative data from a survey of teachers and a review of school and school district
documents relating to the technology plan and qualitative data from interviews of teachers, site
administrators, and district administrators in a case study of a suburban Los Angeles County
comprehensive high school.
Validation of data was accomplished through triangulation. Triangulation is a mixed-
methods approach that facilitates validation of data through cross verification from literature,
surveys, document review and interviews. Triangulation checks the consistency of findings
among information gathered from different sources. The logic of triangulation is based on the
premise that no single method ever adequately solves the problem of rival explanations (Patton,
2002). This mixed-methods approach was used to maximize the strength of quantitative research
in providing descriptive information from a larger population coupled with the strength of
qualitative research in providing an in-depth exploration of the underlying meanings that
participants give to the data (Creswell, 2008).
Participants and Setting
The participants in this study were teachers, the high school principal and district
administrators from a suburban comprehensive high school in Los Angeles. The high school
selected had recently implemented a 1:1 laptop program. People-centric studies help gather data
from individuals who share a common experience within the same state (Patton, 2002).
According to Patton (2002), understanding that interviewing and observation are mutually
reinforcing qualitative techniques is a bridge to understanding the fundamentally people-oriented
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 49
nature of qualitative inquiry.
Qualitative methods focus on research that attempts to understand how people interpret
their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their
experiences (Merriam, 2009). The reason for using qualitative methods was to elicit data from
teachers and administrators in their natural settings. A natural setting for an administrator is his
or her office. Teacher interviews were conducted via telephone at a time and day that was
convenient for the teachers.
Merriam (2009) stated that, in all forms of qualitative research, some, and occasionally
all, of the data are collected through interviews. Interviews were conducted in order to make
determinations that could not be directly ascertained from the survey or document review alone.
Data about opinions, behavior, or the teachers’ interpretations of the technology and their self-
efficacy regarding its use might be hard to identify through the aforementioned methods alone.
Before a school was selected, the criteria were first determined (LeCompte, Preissle, &
Tesch, 1993) to reflect a typical high school in Southern California. The school was selected on
six criteria: (a) a high school in Southern California; (b) 1:1 technology laptop or tablet device
implementation where the school district or school committed to providing enough laptop
computers for every student; (c) a public, non-charter school; (d) ethnically diverse student
population; (e) an English language learner population of at least 10%; and (f) and at least 50%
students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. A policy allowing the devices to go home
with students was not a criterion for this study. The purpose for the criteria above was to ensure
the results of this study would be useful to the majority of high school educators in California.
Public schools were chosen for this study because they accept all students who live in their
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 50
attendance boundaries, do not have access to private foundation funds that some charter schools
do and must adhere to bargaining unit agreements.
Purposeful sampling was used to identify a high school that fit the criteria. Cases for
study (e.g., people, organizations, communities, cultures, events, critical incidences) are selected
because they are information rich and illuminative and offer useful manifestations of the
phenomenon of interest; sampling, then, is aimed at insight about the phenomenon, not empirical
generalization from a sample to a population (Patton, 2002).
The study’s site was a high school in a suburb in Los Angeles County and part of a
unified school district. This study used the pseudonym Diversity High School in place of the
school’s true name. Enrollment for the 2015-2016 school year was 944 students. Of these, 10%
were White, 74% were Latino, 3% were Asian, 6% were Filipino, and 5% were African
American. In terms of language, 10% of the students were English language learners, and 92.1%
of them noted Spanish as their home language. Approximately 69% qualified for California
unduplicated pupil count of free or reduced-priced meals, English learners and foster youth.
(California Department of Education, 2015).
Instrumentation and Protocols
Survey and interview questions established as an accurate means to identify information
regarding technology implementation were based on four sets of surveys and interview protocols
and frameworks: ISTE, the LoTi framework by Moersh (2013), TPACK (Harris et al., 2009);
Koehler et al., 2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2009) and the International Technology Education
Association. In addition, to improve validity of results (Creswell, 2014), the interview and
survey questions were pilot tested with teachers and one administrator at a high school with
similar demographics and with a 1:1 laptop program. After the pilot survey was conducted, the
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 51
researcher interviewed three faculty members and one administrator, and the results were
reviewed in order to assess the degree to which the questions appropriately addressed what the
researcher intended. After the interviews and discussions regarding both the piloted survey and
interview questions, the questions for this study were revised.
This study included semi-structured (Merriam, 2009) or guided interviews (Patton, 2002)
with teachers, school site administrators, and district administrators. District administrators were
chosen because of their involvement with the 1:1 laptop implementation plan and the principal
was chosen because of his role as the instructional leader for the school. In order to maintain
high validity, from the teachers who indicated on the survey that they were interested in
participating in an interview, a mix of teachers were chosen who represented a cross-section of
the faculty (Maxwell, 2013).
In addition to the survey and interviews, a review of the school and school district
documents relating to the technology implementation plan, including plans for professional
development and infrastructure upgrades and maintenance, was conducted.
Quantitative data were collected through a questionnaire generated through
SurveyMonkey.com. This anonymous survey served as an instrument to collect trend data and
descriptive analysis.
Qualitative data were collected through interviews. The rationale for the structure of the
interview protocol was to ask questions that would yield data to answer the research questions.
The purpose of qualitative data interviewing is to capture interviewees view their school and
district, to learn their terminology and judgments, and to capture the complexities of their
individual perceptions and experiences (Patton, 2002). Interview protocols were created to guide
this qualitative data gathering process. The interview guide recommended by Patton (2002) was
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 52
used to list the questions or issues to be explored in the interview. According to Patton (2002),
the interview guide provides topics or subject areas within which the interviewer is free to
explore, probe, and ask questions that will elucidate and illuminate that particular subject.
Furthermore, semi-structured (Merriam, 2009) or guided interview (Patton, 2002) questions were
asked to yield in-depth qualitative data (Merriam, 2009) so that the researcher might ask follow-
up questions to better ascertain the respondent’s views regarding implementation of the 1:1
laptop program (Merriam, 2009) and to maintain the comprehensiveness of the data and to
provide for a systematic data collection process for each respondent (Patton, 2002). Protocols for
teacher, site administrators, and district administrators are included in the appendices. Interview
strategies were consistent with the philosophy of naturalistic inquiry.
A critical skill used for establishing a productive interview was building a physical
rapport with the interviewee. This allowed for an environment in which the interviewee felt
comfortable to share and be honest when answering questions. According to Patton (2002),
physical rapport is distinguished from content in which the interviewer must maintain neutrality.
This was especially done in the entry stage of the interview in order to set a tone of neutrality.
Data Collection Protocols
The first contact was with the school district superintendent via e-mail, followed by a
phone call to ask for permission for the district and the school to participate in the study. After
permission was granted by the superintendent’s office, the school principal was contacted via e-
mail and a phone call in which the researcher explained the purpose of the study and arranged for
the teachers to be surveyed and to set up the interview with him. The principal was e-mailed the
link to the SurveyMonkey.com on-line anonymous survey and was asked to send it to the
faculty. E-mail reminders were sent to the principal for distribution to the teachers in order to
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 53
achieve as high a response rate as possible. The attempt to have high teacher participation in the
survey was to achieve reliability in the results (Creswell, 2008). Teachers spent approximately
10 minutes completing the survey questions.
For the semi-structured, guided interviews, respondents were chosen purposefully
following the criteria described in the Instrumentation and Protocols section of this chapter. The
respondents selected were called, and the researcher identified himself, restated the background
and purpose of the interview, and scheduled a place, time and date to conduct the interview. A
follow-up e-mail was sent to each interviewee that provided background information and a list of
the interview questions. Teachers were interviewed by telephone at a time and day convenient
for them while the site and district administrators were interviewed in their respective offices.
This was done to ensure that the environment was comfortable and confidential. They were all
told that their real names would not be used and neither would the name of the school. All
respondents were asked permission to be recorded electronically. This allowed the researcher to
focus more on the participant and not solely on writing down detailed notes, even though some
notes were taken during and after the interview (Patton, 2002). The recordings were
professionally transcribed to a Microsoft Word document.
Data Analysis
The goal of this study was to understand how leadership affects the implementation of a
1:1 technology program at a Southern California high school and its impact on teacher self-
efficacy regarding use of technology. The method used in analyzing the interview and
observation data was the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1968). According to
Glazer and Strauss (1968), the four main stages of the constant comparative method are
comparing incidents applicable to each identified category, integrating categories and their
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 54
properties, delimiting the theory, and writing theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1968). This constant
comparative method involved coding all collected data. The method allows for testing
hypotheses and developing grounded theory that will help make practical decisions.
After the collection of all data from the SurveyMonkey.com survey and the review of
relevant school and district documents and interviews, the researcher reviewed the data and
placed the results into small detailed categories in an open coding process (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). As new pieces of information were found, a new code was created; each was defined and
placed into a codebook. After no new codes could be identified, a second step of axial coding
was initiated (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, 2014). During the axial coding process, the researcher
grouped similar pieces of open codes larger pieces of data or themes. The final step in the coding
process was selective coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) wherein main themes were
identified. During each step of the data analysis, the focus was on how the survey, interview and
document review results addressed the research questions.
Ethical Considerations
This proposal was submitted to and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the
University of Southern California. There was written consent from the school district in which
Diversity High School was located. These consent forms ensured that all parties involved were
interviewed and questioned voluntarily. This included the teachers, site administrators, and
district administrators. The names of all respondents were changed, and their identities were not
disclosed. All respondents were asked for permission to digitally record their interviews, the
recorder was in plain sight, and requests to comment off the record were granted. The transcribed
interviews were stored in a secure place and were scheduled to be destroyed in 2018.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 55
Summary
This mixed-methods study was designed by combining quantitative data from an online
survey and a review of relevant school and district documents with qualitative data from semi-
structured or guided interviews. All of the findings were triangulated in order to provide an
understanding of how leadership and 1:1 technology program implementation had an impact on
teacher self-efficacy. This method provided validity to the study. All findings are presented in
Chapter Four and recommendations for further research are included in Chapter Five.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 56
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This chapter presents results from the data collected in an examination of how the action
and inaction of district and school-site education leaders involved with a 1:1 laptop initiative at a
comprehensive suburban high school influenced teacher self-efficacy through professional
development, intentionally managing change processes, providing adequate funding for the
program, a quality technical infrastructure, and the establishment of monitoring and evaluation
processes. An understanding of how educational leaders develop and attend to teacher self-
efficacy with new technologies may lead to improved success with new technology initiatives
such as 1:1 laptop programs. Myriad reasons exist as to why school districts implement 1:1
laptop initiatives. Schools leaders face internal and external accountabilities (Fullan & Quinn,
2015) for helping their students master the skills necessary to be successful in the 21st century
(Mouza, 2008; Wagner, 2008); to close the digital divide between students who have access to
technologies at home and those who do not (Garland & Wotton, 2002; Warschauer et al., 2004);
to successfully implement Next Generation Science Standards that call for the use of technology
in classrooms as well as the inclusion of engineering elements; and the new California
Assessment of Student Performance that students take via computers (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007;
SBAC, 2016). Again, internal and external accountabilities require school leaders to implement
technology initiatives successfully.
Selection of School Site and District
Before a school was selected, the criteria were first determined (LeCompte et al., 1993)
to reflect a typical high school in Southern California. The school was selected on six criteria: (a)
a high school in Southern California; (b) 1:1 technology laptop or tablet device implementation
where the school district or school committed to providing enough laptop
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 57
computers for every student; (c) a public, non-charter school; (d) ethnically diverse
student population; (e) an English language learner population of at least 10%; and (f) and at
least 50% students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch. A policy allowing the devices to
go home with students was not a criterion for this study. The purpose for the criteria above was
to ensure the results of this study would be useful to the majority of high school educators in
California. Public schools were chosen for this study because they accept all students who live in
their attendance boundaries, do not have access to private foundation funds that some charter
schools do and must adhere to bargaining unit agreements.
Purposeful sampling was used to identify a high school that fit the criteria (Patton, 2002).
The school chosen for this study was a public comprehensive high school located in a suburb in
Los Angeles County and part of a unified school district with 3,853 students. This study used the
pseudonym, Diversity High School in place of the school’s true name. The high school is in the
second year of implementation of a 1:1 laptop initiative. Enrollment for the 2015-2016 school
year was 944 students. Of these, 10% were White, 74% were Latino, 3% were Asian, 6% were
Filipino, and 5% were African American. In terms of language, 10% of the students were
English language learners, and 92.1% of them noted Spanish as their home language.
Approximately 69% qualified for California unduplicated pupil count of free or reduced-priced
meals, English learners and foster youth. (California Department of Education, 2015). Diversity
High School’s 11th graders’ scores on the California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress in the 2015-2016 term were six percentage points lower than the state average for the
math exam and were eight percentage points higher than the state average on the English
language arts exam. In addition, district administrators pointed out that the high school
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 58
enrollment boundary was roughly divided into two economically different communities with one
being less racially or ethnically diverse and wealthier than the other.
Diversity High School was specifically chosen for this study because it fit all six criteria
and was in its second year of a 1:1 laptop initiative. The stage of the school’s laptop initiative
provided the researcher an opportunity to analyze the degree to which district and site leaders
considered teacher self-efficacy as they planned and implemented professional development,
quality infrastructure, initiative funding, progress-monitoring, and managing the change process.
This study was also concerned with how the aforementioned elements ultimately affected teacher
self-efficacy.
To this end, four research questions guided this study:
 How does the school’s technology infrastructure (Internet capacity, tablet device
upkeep/repair, etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy regarding technology implementation?
 To what degree did administrators, in designing a technology plan, consider teacher self-
efficacy?
 How does the school’s instructional professional development influence teacher self-
efficacy regarding technology implementation?
 How did the school district develop an instructional technology plan that includes a
budget and evaluation of the 1:1 initiative?
To attain answers to the research questions, interviews, surveys and a document review
were conducted at Diversity High School and the unified school district in which the high school
resides. Once the data were collected, they were analyzed and coded to identify trends regarding
how administrators’ planning for and implementation of the laptop initiative affected teacher
self-efficacy regarding use of technology.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 59
Methodology
The mixed-methodology used in this study of Diversity High School included
quantitative data from an on-line survey of teachers, a document review of the school and district
websites, the district Local Control Assessment Plan (LCAP), the school’s Western Association
of Schools and Colleges Self-Study and School Accountability Report Card reports, the district
commissioned technology survey report, BrightBytes, and qualitative data gleaned from
interviews conducted with teachers, the principal, and district administrators. The researcher first
contacted the school district superintendent’s office by telephone. Permission was granted by the
assistant superintendent of education services to conduct this study. After permission was
granted, the principal was contacted by e-mail and with a telephone follow up call. The
researcher provided the principal with the purpose of the study and an appointment was made for
an interview in the principal’s office. Using the snowball strategy of purposeful sampling
(Patton, 2002), the researcher asked the principal for names of district-level administrators who
would have knowledge of the initial planning stages of the 1:1 program. The researcher
subsequently arranged to interview the district chief instructional technology officer and a
district administrator who had been a member of the superintendent’s cabinet at the beginning of
the program. The semi-structured interviews (Merriam, 2009) were conducted in the respective
administrators’ offices.
To solicit survey responses, the researcher e-mailed the principal the link to the on-line
Survey.Monkey.com survey and asked that it be forwarded to the faculty. The principal was
asked and agreed to send multiple e-mail reminders inviting the faculty to participate in the
survey to maximize the number of responses to attain reliability in the results (Creswell, 2008).
In addition to the multiple e-mails from the principal to the faculty, the researcher visited the
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 60
campus to encourage teachers to take the survey and placed hard-copy solicitations (that
included the purpose of the study and an explanation of confidentiality for the interviewees and
survey respondents) in teachers’ mailboxes. In addition to the surveys, three teachers were
purposefully chosen from the list of teachers who indicated on the survey that they would
volunteer for an interview. The teachers were interviewed via phone, using the semi-structured
protocol (Merriam, 2009). The researcher explained to each interviewee neither his or her name
nor the school would be identified in the study, and each interviewee agreed to be audio
recorded. Recording the interview facilitated the researcher’s ability to focus on the interview
and to ask follow-up questions, though some notes were taken during the interview (Patton,
2002). The recordings were, then, professionally transcribed. Furthermore, the review of the
documents listed above were also used to triangulate data and findings (Merriam, 2009) in order
to understand how planning for the 1:1 initiative influenced teacher self-efficacy.
Participants
Of the 45 teachers at Diversity High School, 19 teachers responded to the online survey,
for a 42% response rate. Figure 3 shows that 15.8% of respondents reported having 1 to 3 years’
teaching experience, 15.8% had 4 to 10 years of teaching experience and 68.4% had 11 or more
years of teaching experience. Regarding years of teaching experience, the survey respondents
approximately represented the years of teaching experience for all faculty at the school.
According to the California Department of Education sponsored website, DataQuest, Diversity
High School had three teachers with 1to 3 years of experience, which is the same as the number
who took the survey and the average years of experience for the school was 14 years, which is
also similar to the average years of teaching experience of survey respondents.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 61

Figure 3. Survey Respondent Years of Teaching Experience, N=19
Regarding the respondents’ subjects taught, Figure 4 reveals a representation of teachers
from various subjects, although the number of teachers of science and mathematics is slightly
under-represented.

Figure 4. Respondents’ Subject Taught, N=19
Faculty and Administration Interviews
The qualitative methods used in this study consisted of six interviews. The three
administrators were purposefully chosen because of their key roles in the planning and/or
implementation phases of the 1:1 initiative. The principal’s first year at the high school was the
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 62
first year of implementation. The principal was not a district employee during the planning year.
The district’s chief instructional technology officer had been a teacher leader who was involved
in the planning year before implementation and assumed the district position during the first year
of implementation. The second district-level administrator had been a principal on assignment to
the district offices with shared responsibility for planning the initiative.
The three teachers were also purposefully chosen because of the varying perspectives
they held. Teacher A was a veteran teacher of English who also served as an instructional
technology coach and was provided an extra conference period and a stipend to assist the faculty.
She and Teacher B, also a teacher of more than 10 years, had been teachers at the high school in
the years prior to the 1:1 project implementation. She was a teacher of reading who was not an
experienced user of instructional technology. Teacher C was also a veteran teacher of visual and
performing arts, was new to the high school, but had taught at the district’s middle school which
is also part of the district’s 1:1 program. The researcher asked teachers and administrators
interview questions about how the 1:1 initiative was at implementation and at a year and one-half
later.
Results for Research Question One
The first research question asked, “How does the school’s technology infrastructure
(Internet capacity, tablet/laptop device upkeep/repair, etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy
regarding technology implementation?” A review of the research literature on teacher self-
efficacy regarding the use of instructional technology indicated that the school’s technical
infrastructure, such as the speed and reliability of the wireless Internet system, the school’s
ability to repair and maintain the technology, and the laptops themselves, are essential
components of a 1:1 program (Keppler et al., 2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al., 2014) and
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 63
can have an impact on teacher self-efficacy (Gerger, 2014). To address the research question,
findings are presented in the following order: (1) Internet capacity at the beginning of the
program; (2) the status of Internet capacity at the year and one-half mark; (3) findings regarding
the school’s ability to respond to teacher calls for repair or technical assistance; (4) a discussion
on how the aforementioned infrastructure issues affect teacher self-efficacy
Status of the Technical Infrastructure and Reliability of the School ’s Internet Connectivity
Before the roll-out of the laptops, the district made efforts to ensure the wireless
bandwidth could sustain the level of use a 1:1 program would require. District Administrator A
stated that, “our prior technology director was great with that. We had Internet and wireless
before most of the districts around here did.” Nevertheless, there was consensus that the system
was unreliable at the beginning stages of the program. The principal noted that students who
were using the online Read 180 program were “being bumped off [during use] and that there
were arguments with the IT staff at the time over this.” Teacher B noted that, “last year, the
system made using the Internet difficult.” Further corroborating this opinion, Teacher C said that,
“in the beginning [of implementation], the chances of the entire class being able to get online and
having work without it constantly kicking you off…was pretty bad.” These statements revealed
that, although the district planning included provisions to upgrade their Internet system before
the launch of the program, the improvements were inadequate. Therefore, it is imperative that
districts not only assess their Internet capacity prior to distributing laptops and make any
necessary upgrades, but that resources are also in place to address unforeseen shortfalls once the
program is underway. Interviews showed that the district had the ability to respond to the
Internet capacity limitations during the beginning stages of implementation. Teacher B
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 64
acknowledged that, “the district did beef up the bandwidth in the first year.” And, the principal
confirmed that, “the district hired an outside technology firm to make the necessary upgrades.”
While it is clear that there were significant problems with Internet capacity immediately
after launch, district leadership successfully responded to the problems. At the year and one-half
mark of the 1:1 initiative, Figure 5 shows that the majority of teacher respondents gave
Internet reliability a positive rating, with only 15.8% of teachers indicating Internet connectivity
was insufficient. This was corroborated by two of the teacher interviewees. For example,
Teacher C, said, “now, a year and one-half into it, I would say you can get a whole class online
with maybe just five or six kids getting kicked off.” And Teacher B noted that, “the Internet
system has improved. When I have 35 students using the Internet, they only sometimes get
knocked off.”
However, speaking for the teachers who continue to be dissatisfied with Internet capacity,
Teacher A said, “Right now, my kids get dropped from the Internet all the time, and they get
frustrated because they have to re-sign in, and they lose their progress [on the Read 180
program].…It’s very frustrating for the teachers because there are times that I want to do
something on the Internet and it’s down. District people are good at working on the system, but
they really need to beef it up more.”
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 65

Figure 5. Teacher Rating Regarding the Degree to which the Internet is Fast and Reliable
Enough to Use in the Classroom When All Students are Online, N=19
While two of the teacher interviewees and the majority of survey respondents expressed
satisfaction with Internet connectivity at the year and one-half mark, two of the teachers
expressed concerns that the system would not be able to adequately handle a situation when a
large majority of students accessed the system at the same time. Teacher A noted that “if we
managed to get 80% of teachers using Google Classroom regularly, we are in big trouble.”
Teacher C said,
I don’t know what will happen [with the Internet] when we take the SBAC next semester.
I don’t think we have had a day since the last SBAC where all of our students are on-line
at the same time. We’ll see.
Although two of the teachers expressed concerns about the future capacity of the Internet
system, District Administrator B indicated that the “district is currently funding an upgrade in the
infrastructure, so we can be prepared for future [needs].” Apparently, the district had not
communicated to teachers their efforts to further provide upgrades to the wireless system and, as
is the case with myriad other examples, respondents revealed a need for the school and district
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 66
leaders to have effective and clear lines of communication with teachers about progress of the
1:1 program.
Status of Calls for Technical Assistance
The speed with which problems are responded to and the quality of the assistance are
important factors that influence teacher self-efficacy. Insufficiency in this area can contribute to
changing teachers’ opinion regarding the value of a technology program from positive to
negative (Keppler et al, 2014; Penuel, 2006). Furthermore, the research literature indicates a
correlation between how frequently teachers use laptops in their classrooms and the reliability of
the laptops themselves (Davis et al., 2005; Gaynor & Fraser, 2003; Zucker & McGhee, 2005).
First in the review of the functioning of the infrastructure (hard and software and the
Internet) is the level of teacher understanding regarding how to request repairs or technical
assistance. A primary element of a school’s ability to meet the needs of teachers and their
students regarding their use of laptops is a system where a teacher can easily request technical
assistance for the inevitable technical problems. Figure 6 indicates that 89.4% of teachers agreed
or strongly agreed that that they know the school’s process to make trouble calls and none
disagreed with the question. Teacher interviewees also indicated that the process for making
trouble calls is clear to the faculty. Teacher B noted that, “district service personnel are much
easier to get a hold off this year [than in the first year of implementation].”
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 67

Figure 6. Teacher Understanding About how to Make a Request for Repair/Service, N=19
A related second question to the issue of the process for requests for service, is the speed
with which service requests are responded to. The largely positive response to this question
(Figure 7) indicates that the district adequately planned to meet this need, particularly after a year
into the project. Teacher B noted that, “the district is putting more resources [than last year] into
its ability to respond to and repair problems. They’ve got five full-time people working on it,
rather than one or two. The [technicians] are wonderful.” Further, Teacher C commented that
when she recently had a problem connecting the laptop to a peripheral device, “somebody came
in real quickly and did it. It’s very helpful to have [people available to respond to trouble calls].”
The principal also reported concerns with the school’s ability to respond to laptop service
requests in the first year of the program. Students who reported a specific problem with their
laptop were told by the repair technician that there were additional problems, “so they fix [the
original problem], but, while they did that, they also noticed that there was something else wrong
and they were fixing [the second problem] and charging the parents.…It’s like me [taking my
car] in for an air-conditioning and they install new tires, too.” The principal also said that he and
the district were continuing to work on a better plan to respond to laptop repairs.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 68

Figure 7. The School’s Response to a Technical Problem is Fast and Reliable Enough to Meet
the Needs in my Classroom, N=19

Impact of the Technical Infrastructure on Teacher Self-Efficacy
The research literature noted not only the importance of an effective infrastructure
(Keppler et al., 2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al., 2014), but also the connection between
infrastructure issues, including the speed and effectiveness of a school or district’s response to
technical problems and teacher self-efficacy regarding their use of the technology with their
students (Gerger, 2014). The findings of this study match those in the research literature.
Regarding the specific question (Figure 8) about, “the speed with which problems with the
computer and/or the Internet are fixed, contributes to my confidence in using the technology in
my classroom,” 42.1% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed, while 47.4% somewhat
agreed.
When asked about the impact infrastructure issues and, specifically, Internet connectivity
had on her self-efficacy regarding the use of Internet with her students, Teacher C said, “it would
be safe to say that there is a correlation between the reliability of the Internet and my self-
confidence.” And, Teacher B simply said, “absolutely” when asked the same question. It is clear
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 69
that both the survey data and the teacher interviews confirm the research literature findings
regarding the correlation between the quality of the school’s technical infrastructure and teacher
self-confidence regarding their use of the laptops.
Results for Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “To what degree did administrators, in designing a
technology plan, consider teacher self-efficacy?” Research literature on the importance of
teacher self-efficacy is clear, particularly when applied to instructional technology (Fullan, 2007;
Kim et al, 2013). Furthermore, because it is imperative that teachers believe that integrating the
laptops into teaching and learning adds value (Weston & Bain, 2010), it is also important that
instructional technology planning include factors that influence teacher self-efficacy.

Figure 8. The Speed With Which Problems With the Computer and/or the Internet are Fixed,
Contributes to my Confidence in Using the Technology in my Classroom, N=19
The findings regarding this research question are that neither the district nor the site
administrators specifically considered teacher self-efficacy while designing a technology plan.
Not only was teacher self-efficacy not considered, developing a plan for the initiative was not a
priority either. Both district-level administrators interviewed indicated that a formal or a strategic
plan was not developed prior to the implementation phase. District Administrator A said that,
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 70
“we never had a written [strategic] plan because our [previous] superintendent wasn’t into
written plans. The main idea was to get the laptops to the schools.” The principal recalled that
the previous superintendent said, “let’s get [laptops] in their hands, and it’s OK. Figure it out
afterwards.” District Administrator B, who was a teacher during the time the district
decided to fund a 1:1 laptop initiative, equated teacher self-efficacy to the concept of teacher
buy-in. To that, he said, “I think it is crucial.”
Consultation of Teachers Prior to Implementation of 1:1 Device
Both district-level administrators explained that teachers were consulted in the year prior
to implementation. District Administrator B noted, “the district called in about a dozen teachers
to come in, take a look at different devices and to provide their input on what they thought was
going to be best for students.” District-level administrator A said that the teachers recommended
laptops over other types of devices and that was the primary reason the district purchased laptops
over Macs or Chromebooks. However, either the district did not effectively communicate to all
teachers during the year of implementation that a teacher committee influenced the district’s
decision to purchase laptops or a year and one-half later (at the time of this study), teachers had
forgotten this fact. Figure 9 shows that teachers indicated they largely did not know about the
district convened teacher committee that provided advice on the devices. Only 15.8% of the
teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the survey item about teacher consultation, and 47.3%
responded “disagree or strongly disagree.” Teacher B elaborated on the subject of teacher
consultation:
It would help if some of it was bottom up, and it would if there was a feeling that, when
they put together a committee to decide on these things, if it was more than just that [the
conveners had been told by the district] that they had to get teacher input. I don’t like
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 71
it.…If you’re going to ask me what I think, it would be nice if you use that information.
There were teacher complaints about how the district chose the software programs it did.”
Teacher A also commented that there, “definitely should be more strategic planning and
definitely more teacher input into what software purchases were made.” Teacher C further
confirmed the feeling that teachers were not consulted, “The one thing that is still not really
happening is they don’t ask teachers beforehand, before they decide on a program.” She further
stated, “having our input would be helpful. For example, the laptops the district purchased for
teachers are different than the student laptops. If asked, teachers would have asked that teachers
and students have the same laptops.”

Figure 9. During the Development of the 1:1 Laptop Program (Prior to Implementation),
Teachers Were Consulted (About the Program), N=19
Teacher Beliefs on the Effectiveness of the 1:1 Laptop Initiative
Prior to the start of the 1:1 laptop initiative, Figure 10 shows that a large majority of
teachers indicated that they believed that the laptops could contribute to improving teaching and
learning. In all, 68.4% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement and only 5.3% disagreed.
Teacher A also confirmed her belief in the potential of the program and said that she taught with
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 72
computers prior to coming to Diversity High School. In addition, two of the district-level
administrators and two of the teachers indicated that most of the classrooms had SmartBoards
prior to the start of the laptop initiative and that some teachers had participated in the annual
Computer Using Educators conference, although the interviewees could not assess the level of
instructional technology use in classrooms before the project began.

Figure 10. Before the 1:1 Laptop Program Started at my School, I Believed That It Could
Contribute to Improving my Teaching and Student Learning, N=19

After almost two years into the 1:1 laptop initiative, teachers’ beliefs that the laptops can
contribute to improving their teaching and student learning increased. Comparing the responses
in Figure 10 and 11 reveals that, although the “strongly agree to somewhat agree” response rate
was the same 94.8%, the percentage of respondents who responded, “Strongly agree” improved
from 26.3% before the project began to 42.11% after their students had laptops for almost two
years. This is an improvement of 15.8 percentage points. Teacher B reported that, before the
initiative began, she only had access to a laptop cart that made using the computers more
difficult because there were not enough. In addition, she said that, as a teacher of English,
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 73
I could suddenly run their papers through Turnitin.com, which is an on-line plagiarism
checker. That helped a lot. The 1:1 [program] gave me a lot more access to Internet
programs that helped my teaching. The entire English department is using Turnitin.com.
Although the teacher interviewees cast many of their responses in a negative light, the survey
responses reveal that a high percentage, 94.8%, think that the laptops can contribute to improved
teaching and learning.

Figure 11. I Currently Believe That a 1:1 Laptop Tablet Program Can Contribute to Improving
my Teaching and Student Learning, N=19

Teacher Opinion Regarding 1:1 Laptop Initiative and its Impact on their Ability to Teach
21st Century Skills
To review, 21st century skills were defined broadly by education leaders and researchers.
This study considers examples of 21st century skills to include (1) critical thinking and problem-
solving, (2) collaboration across networks and leading by influence, (3) agility and
adaptability, (4) initiative and entrepreneurialism, (5) effective oral and written communication,
(6) assessing and analyzing information, and (7) curiosity and imagination (Mouza, 2008;
Wagner, 2008). As is noted below in the district goals section of this study, according to the
principal and district administrators, 21st century skills were a primary goal and major reason for
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 74
embarking on the 1:1 initiative. Prevalent in the research literature was that 21st century skills
were a goal of district leadership (Larson & Miller, 2011; Rosefsky-Saavedra & Opfer, 2012;
Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
As seen in Figure 12, the survey responses for “The 1:1 program has improved my ability
to teach 21st century skills,” were mixed, with almost equal responses in each category of
“strongly agree” to “disagree.” Administrator and teacher interviewees revealed that the issue of
21st century skills was not clearly articulated to teachers, nor was there strong professional
development on how to use the laptops to help students master these types of skills. Teacher A
was clear that 21st century skills, such as being able to communicate and problem-solve are
skills that the faculty was working to achieve with their students. However, she acknowledged
that 21st century skills were difficult to define and asked, “What does it mean? It’s not really
defined. I think part of that is because changes occur so fast.” District Administrator B
corroborated this perception:
I do remember when all this came about, the phrase, “21st century skills.” We discussed
that over and over again. I’m not sure people knew exactly what that meant or what it
includes. What is it you needed? The district would ask, “What do students need for the
future?” Teachers would respond, “You tell us. We’ll do what you tell us to do.”
It’s just one of those unclear situations. We knew we were trying to prepare kids for the
future and we were doing the best that we could. Now, a few years down the line, we
have a clearer understanding. The more professional development that we do and
different conferences that we go to, that topic is discussed in length. We have a better
understanding of what other districts are doing and what successful districts are doing
and you know what, if they’re doing it we’re going to just follow suite. It’s not like we’re
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 75
leading the way anymore. It’s like, “Hey, someone’s already covered it. Let’s follow
along. It sounds good [to] us.” We’re doing our part to make sure that our kids are
prepared as best as we know. In my position, it’s interesting because I’m trying to
prepare students and teachers for stuff I’m not too sure about. I just have to tell them,
“Look, you just have to be prepared to continue to learn and be adaptable.” This whole
idea of “I have to know everything before I move on.” You can’t. Not with technology.
We just have to give you enough to go and let them go with it, and, once this works,
great, keep working with that and be ready to change.
While there was a lack of clarity among district and school leaders regarding what 21st
century skills actually are and how to teach them, both the district’s LCAP and the high
school’s School Learning Outcomes (SLOs), which are required for accreditation, include
general references to 21st century skills. The SLO states that Diversity High School students
will be, “Problem solvers; analytical thinkers, reflective communicators (all tenets of 21st
century skills); and knowledgeable 21st century learners” and the LCAP lists, as its number one
goal, the aim to “Prepare students with 21st Century skills for college and career readiness”
(Diversity Unified School District, 2016, p. 79).

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 76

Figure 12. The 1:1 Laptop Program Has Improved my Ability to Teach Students 21st Century
Skills (Innovation, Collaboration, Assessment and Analysis of Information, and
Communication), N=19

Teacher Understanding of Program Goals
The importance of school leaders articulating the goals of a 1:1 laptop or other
instructional technology program to teachers is strong (Bleakley & Mangin, 2013; Dexter, 2011;
Hannafin & Vermillion, 2008; Levin & Schrum, 2014; McNiff, 2014; Michaelis et al., 2010;
Schrum et al., 2011). Figure 13 shows that 63.1% of the teachers indicated that they strongly
agreed or agreed that they understand the district and/or school goals regarding the initiative and
an additional 15.8% somewhat agreed. This is a large percentage of teachers in agreement,
coupled with the fact that no teachers strongly disagreed. The overall high rate of agreement on
the survey largely conflicts with the opinions expressed by the teachers and administrators
interviewed; they did not express a clear understanding of the goals, particularly at the beginning
of the initiative roll out. The interviews also revealed varying points of view regarding 1:1 laptop
initiative goals. This corresponds with, as was noted earlier, the fact that there was no overall
plan prior to the implementation phase. Teacher A stated that, “I think [the district] wants to
ensure that our students all have what they’re calling ‘21st century skills.’ That our students have
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 77
basic computer literacy skills.” Teacher A further stated that the goals were not communicated
to teachers very well:
I think they put the cart before the horse a little bit. The decision was made that they were
going to a 1:1 program and there wasn’t a lot of training for teachers about what that
would look like. I just think in general, the [district leaders] are not being clear about why
we are doing this. There is an overall feeling that we are just doing this [1:1 program]
because it looks good. It’s just for show, but I don’t think that was the original intention.
There wasn’t a lot of forethought, there wasn’t a lot of discussion about why are we
doing this.”
Furthermore, she thinks that the changes in school and district leadership in the past
couple of years (new principal, superintendent, and chief technology officer) may have
contributed to the lack of a unified message around goals.
District Administrator B, who was a classroom teacher the first year of the program
stated in response the researcher’s question about the district’s communication to teachers about
the initiative goals,
I don’t know if those are necessarily clear to us.…It almost felt like getting the laptops in
to the hands of students and they will learn [was the superintendent’s point of view].
Don’t worry about teaching them how to type, they’re always on their devices, just get
going.
In addition, the principal remarked regarding the program goals, “I felt the plan wasn’t
completely well thought out.… [The superintendent] said, ‘let’s get the technology in students’
hands as soon as possible.’” In addition, according to the principal, the superintendent also
wanted to address the equity issue:
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 78
He really had an attitude that if another [neighboring] school district has laptops and they
are wealthy, why can’t we? Let’s even the playing field for our students. Our students
don’t have that access, so we should give it to them.
While only 23% teachers surveyed indicated they did not know the goals, and the
interviews revealed varying responses to the issue of goals, the district included in its LCAP a
goal to “Provide adequate and updated technology for students to develop digital fluency.
Maintain 1:1 laptop program in grades 3-12 grade.” A summary of findings for research
question number two is that the district’s plans were incomplete, did consider teacher self-
efficacy, and aspects of planning that did exist were not clearly communicated to teachers.

Figure 13. I Understand the School and/or District Goals Regarding the 1:1 Laptop or Tablet
Device Program, N=19

Results for Research Question Three
The third research question asked, “How does the school’s instructional professional
development influence teacher self-efficacy regarding technology implementation?” The
findings for research question three are in two parts: teachers’ ratings of their self-efficacy
regarding their ability to fully integrate the laptops into their daily teaching and student learning
followed by findings regarding professional development and its ultimate effect it had or may
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 79
later have on teacher self-efficacy and on teachers’ ability to effectively use the laptops in their
classrooms.
Full Integration of the Laptops into Teaching and Student Learning
According to the research literature on instructional technology in schools, a desired
outcome for the use of the technology should be full integration into the curriculum (Keengwe et
al., 2008; Keppler et al., 2014; Penuel, 2006; Weston & Bain, 2010). For the purposes of this
study, the teacher survey defined “fully integrated technology” as
Effective technology integration occurs when teachers use the laptop or computer device
as a teaching tool and students use it as a learning tool on a daily basis. An example of
student integration of technology is one in which they use it to obtain relevant
information in a timely manner, analyze and synthesize the information, and present it in
a professional manner.
In summary, the survey revealed that, after a year and one-half, teachers who agreed or
strongly agreed with their ability to fully integrate the technology into their daily teaching and
learning did not change their opinions; however, teachers who strongly disagreed with their
confidence to integrate the technology decreased from 15.8% to zero percent. In addition, there
was an increase of 21.1 percentage points in the number of teachers who somewhat agreed to the
integration question over the same time. Thus, after a year and one-half of using laptops
and participating in limited professional development (PD), there was little impact, other than
slight decreases in negative ratings, in Diversity High School teachers’ self-assessment of their
ability to fully integrate the laptops into their teaching and student learning. Furthermore, teacher
interviewees reported that the issue of full integration was neither clearly articulated as a goal by
the administration nor a strong component of the PD. The only interviewee who could provide an
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 80
example of a degree of integration was Teacher A: “The school conducted a survey on school
culture using Google Forums and using their laptops, my class analyzed the data and students
wrote reports on their findings.”

Figure 14. Before the 1:1 Laptop Project, I had Confidence in my Ability to Fully Integrate a
Laptop Into my Teaching and Learning, N=19

Figure 15. After the 1:1 Laptop Project, I had Confidence in my Ability to Fully Integrate a
Laptop Into my Teaching and Learning, N=19

Professional Development
As noted earlier, in addition to infrastructure issues, other factors can have an impact on
teacher self-efficacy, such as quality of PD. The discussion of findings below explores how PD
affects teacher self-efficacy regarding use of the laptops. Research in the area of teacher PD and
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 81
its impact on the effectiveness of school technology programs in general, including the
relationship between such PD and teacher self-efficacy, is abundant (Chesbro & Boxler, 2010;
Fullan, 2007; Gorder, 2008; Hutchison, 2012; Keengwe et al., 2008; Keppler et al., 2014; Penuel,
2006; Weston & Bain, 2010).
In the category of PD, teachers were first asked to rate the impact it had on their ability to
use the basic functions of the laptop. When combining “strongly agree,” “agree,” and “somewhat
agree,” the positive responses equal 63.2% (Figure 16). Although it is imperative that teachers
understand how to use the computer, because the survey did not include a before and after
component to this question, the data implies PD’s positive impact, but there is insufficient
information to confirm this.

Figure 16. Since the Inception of the School’s 1:1 Laptop Program, the Technology PD has
Increased/Improved my Ability to Operate the Laptop (For Example, how to use Windows 10),
N=19

Figure 17 shows a wide wide range of responses to the question of the impact of PD on
teachers’ confidence using the laptops as a teaching tool. Only 26.3% of respondents answered
“strongly agree” or “agree” to the question, and a majority, 42.1% indicated that they “somewhat
agree.” Interviews corroborate the low satisfaction with the PD. As was the case with a lack of
teacher awareness that some teachers were involved in the planning process regarding choosing
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 82
the types of devices, teachers report that they were also not consulted in the identification of
training needs or the development of PD to meet their needs, which are key to successful
technology programs (Gorder, 2008; Penuel, 2006). Teacher B commented that PD was
“completely top down. The district needed to try to get more teacher buy-in regarding PD.” In
addition, teacher A stated, “There’s not enough professional development.” And, teacher C
noted,
Not only were teachers not asked [prior to the roll out] about things like which computers
students should have, we aren’t asked about what PD we need. And if the training is not
adequate, then, we’re not using them [the laptops]. PD has to be tailored to our individual
subjects, for example.
Teacher C further stated that the PD, “Should be during the day, not at the end of a long teaching
day or on our own time.”
Furthermore, district administrator A said,
If I had to criticize ourselves, it was the PD, making sure teachers understood, following
up with them. We didn’t even have goals such as first-grade students will do this, ninth
graders will do this, etcetera. Technology standards exist, but we never had any training
with them.
Regarding reasons for a lack of adequate planning for PD, district administrator A noted,
It was hard to know, honestly [why we didn’t have good plans]. The roll out came right
after we were also still rolling out Common Core and were preparing for the SBAC.
There are just so many hours in the day and that complicated things a lot.
District Administrator B elaborated on the district’s struggles with PD:
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 83
Regarding the PD issue, it is super important to get the teachers involved and to feel comfortable
with the technology. I’m finding a lot of push back. So many great products, so many great
programs, but the teachers are scared to use them. They are so often used to being the masters of
knowledge. They hold it all. They are not comfortable trying something out unless they have it
down. I’m trying to train everybody. It’s like, “look, kids are going to know stuff. Let them go
and be okay with that. The kids are going to teach you something.” We’re struggling with that
right now.
However, some of the teacher interview comments about PD were positive. For example,
Teacher B commented that
It’s important to have time to sit with someone and play [with the technology]. The
trainings that were helpful were when they said, go fool around with the program, try
this, look at that, I am here to help you if you need it.
In addition, two of the teachers noted that the school provided two members of the teaching staff
an auxiliary period each so that they could be available to other teachers during the day and after
school to provide one on one assistance. They both considered this the best part of the PD
process. The third teacher interviewee, one of the designated teachers who provides assistance,
also viewed this aspect of the implementation in a positive light.
While there is general lack of satisfaction with the PD provided by the school and district
over the first year and one-half of the program, all teacher respondents reported that they
consider future professional development would increase or improve their confidence regarding
their ability to fully integrate student laptops into their teaching and student learning with 73.6%
responding with “strongly agree” or “agree” to the item and none disagreeing. To explain this
seemingly contradictory set of responses of dissatisfaction with the PD provided but
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 84
overwhelming support of future PD, Teacher C noted that, “We simply want more help. Some
PD is better than nothing.”

Figure 17. Since the Inception of the School’s 1:1 Laptop Program, the Technology Professional
Development Has Increased/Improved my Confidence to use the Internet as a Teaching and
Student Learning Tool, N=19

Figure 18. Additional PD in the Future, Will Increase/Improve my Confidence to Fully Integrate
the Laptop Into my Teaching and Student Learning, N=19

Results for Research Question Four
The fourth research question asked, “How did the school district develop an instructional
technology plan that includes a budget and evaluation of the 1:1 initiative?” Three final elements
of an effective instructional technology program are for the school and/or district to have
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 85
adequately planned for funds that provide for on-going maintenance of the hardware,
infrastructure and repairs, and to have a means for evaluating the effectiveness of the program
(Keppler et al., 2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al, 2014). In addition, stakeholder
understanding of the initiative’s goals, etc. is another important aspect of a technology program
(Bauter, 2013; Huffman et al, 2013;).
As indicated in earlier findings, the district did not have a solid plan prior to or at the
implementation phases of the program, nor did teachers and administrators report knowing
important elements of a plan, such as clear goals. Therefore, the data in Figure 19 are not
surprising: the majority of teacher respondents, 52.6%, reported that they did not, “understand
how the school and/or district is monitoring and evaluating the 1:1 laptop or tablet device
initiative.”
Although both the previous and current superintendents made statements about the
program goals, and the district included some language about instructional technology goals in
LCAP, the challenge remains how to clearly communicate these goals to teachers (Bleakley &
Mangin, 2013; Dexter, 2011; Hannafin & Vermillion, 2008; Levin & Schrum, 2014; McNiff,
2014: Michaelis et al., 2010; Schrum et al., 2011).
Secondly, even if the school and/or district had clear goals, an additional task is to
develop metrics to evaluate and monitor them with appropriate benchmarks. Again, the teacher
survey and teacher and administrator interviews revealed that specific objective benchmarks
were not clear to them. Administrator A said, “What we really needed was a roll out plan that
was thought out with goals, with benchmarks. We didn’t spend enough time examining whether
our teachers are using the technology and asking whether they know how to use it.” Teacher A
corroborated the lack of clarity regarding what markers the district planned to use to determine
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 86
the 1:1 program to be successful. When asked about such benchmarks or end goals, she
responded,
I do not have a clue. I mean, I don’t know how they’re keeping data…nobody ever asked
[about successes]. Nobody has asked me how many documents my students have turned
in or even what programs I’m using. I use Turnitin.com and other software programs. As
far as I know, nobody’s even asked. Nobody has asked, ‘What are you doing with them?
What do your students use them [the software programs]?’ So, I don’t know. That would
be a good question to ask somebody at the district. It’s great that we have computers, but
what is the intention?

Figure 19. I Understand how the School and/or District is Monitoring and Evaluating the 1:1
Laptop or Tablet Device Initiative, N=19

Program Progress Monitoring
Although the teacher interviewees were unaware of how the district conducted progress
monitoring, the district had, after approximately a year into the initiative, funded a contract with
an outside company, BrightBytes, to conduct a technology survey on professional development,
21st century skills and student and teacher access to technology, and Internet use at home. The
BrightBytes survey provided data for the district as a whole and for each of its schools.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 87
Regarding instructional technology skills, on a scale that includes beginning, emerging,
proficient, advanced, and exemplary, the survey of Diversity High School teachers earned the
scores presented below.
Table 1
BrightBytes Skill Survey – Diversity High School
Foundational Skills Advanced
On-line Skills Proficient
Multi-media Skills Advanced
Beliefs Advanced

BrightBytes defined each category as outlined below
 Foundational skills: basic computing sills such as e mail and creating spreadsheets
 Online skills: essential skills for contributing to collaboration on the Internet
 Multimedia skills: ability to manipulate photos and edit audio, etc.
 Beliefs: how teachers feel about technology for learning (BrightBytes, 2016, pp. 5–7)
The survey report also uses percentage rates to score district-wide results for six
categories. Table 2 shows total scores for teachers and their interest in engaging in PD in each of
the following areas: foundational skills, on-line skills, multi-media skills, beliefs, and digital
citizenship.
Table 2
BrightBytes PD Interest Survey – Diversity High School District
Category Bright Byte Rating Interest in PD
Foundational Skills 59% 23%
On-line Skills 53% 26%
Multi-media Skills 40% 65%
Beliefs 77% Not rated
Digital Citizenship 24% Not rated

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 88
Lastly, the BrightBytes survey also rated 21st century skills that it defines as creativity,
collaboration, communication, and critical thinking. The survey provided overall scores in this
category based on a “beginning to exemplary” scale used in Table 1. Diversity High School
earned a rating of “emerging” based on teacher survey responses. While the district funding of
the survey represents a commitment to a form of monitoring, it was unclear, based on the
administrator interviews, how school or district leaders plan on using the data or the results of
the focus groups and board study sessions on the data to drive thinking regarding the initiative.
The district’s LCAP includes the following elaboration on its evaluation and monitoring efforts:
Basic LCAP survey was replaced with an intensive process of strategic planning that
included Bright Bytes technology survey taken by teachers, parents and students, a text-
response survey with a phenomenal response rate of 4,541 from parents, students, staff,
and community members (goal was 2,500). While the Bright Bytes survey gave an
overall picture of technology use, support, processional development, infrastructure and
21st Century learning, a follow up survey measured actual use of district purchased
online programs and devices. In addition to extensive surveys, focus groups and board
study sessions were held to review data, give an open form for feedback and an
opportunity to delve deeper into the data. (Diversity High School District Local Control
Accountability Plan, 2016, p.5)
School District ’s Instructional Technology Plan Budget
The previous superintendent made a commitment to implementing a 1:1 laptop program
and worked with city officials and the community to develop a bond funding initiative.
According to district administrator A, city and community leaders worked to develop and pass
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 89
the bond on behalf of the school district. Initially, the bond funded upgrades to the schools’
Internet infrastructure and purchase of the original laptops.
At the time of this study, the majority of funds to continue the laptop initiative came from
the Local Control Funding Formula. The following is a list of sample items funded as identified
by the district’s LCAP:
Laptop updates; two FTE technicians; professional development (opportunities held after
school for both classified and certificated including classroom technology, Excel,
gradebook, Google Classroom and sign language); conference attendance: (two personnel
from each school to attend the annual Computer Using Educators conference); Bright
Bytes survey; the Chief Technology Officer position; Illuminate software licenses;
Rosetta Stone software licenses; School Wires licenses (parent portal); and a Digital
Media Specialist position (Diversity High School District Local Control Accountability
Plan, 2016, pp. 39-104).
In addition to the current budget items, the district and school principal were in the
process of analyzing the current use of laptops and considered converting to the less expensive
Chromebooks. Administrator A stated that,
This year, our new chief technology officer, who has a teaching background, is
examining on-going costs. He asked, “Why would I pay $250 for a laptop when I can buy
a Chromebook for $180?” What we are now doing is phasing out the laptops and phasing
in Chromebooks. We are also investigating a Bring Your Own Device [BYOD] option.”
Regarding budgeting issues at the start of the program, District Administrator A
commented that, “during the first year of the program, a few monitoring steps were taken, such
as we hired [an] outside firm to evaluate our wireless system after we implemented the laptop
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 90
program because the system was shutting down. As a result, we decided to fund further
upgrades.” In addition, she stated that
one thing that was anticipated was the need to order extra laptops, so they could have
some to check out. We didn’t want students sitting without one while theirs was being
repaired. We had that whole equity thing down pat.
When asked to reflect on budget considerations early in the program, District
Administrator A remarked that the original plan should have accounted for how hardware would
be replaced when warranties expired:
That should have been thought out, too. If we had looked at the maintenance costs, we
would have gone with Chromebooks originally. We were jazzed by the laptop. It was
cool. It was great. I think, if we really had to write a plan and look at data and decide on
benchmarks…writing a plan together would have been huge.
Conclusion
The findings were presented so that the four research questions, which were crafted to
guide this study, could be answered using the data collected from a survey of the teaching staff,
interviews with teachers and administrators, and a review of documents from the high school and
district.
Regarding the first research question as to the quality of the school’s technology
infrastructure and its impact on teacher self-efficacy regarding the use of laptops as a teaching
tool, the major findings are that the Internet upgrades installed before the program began were
beneficial in that Internet connectivity required an upgrade, but, overall, the upgrades were
insufficient. Furthermore, the speed of the technical response was adequate, but the quality of the
assistance was less so. A positive aspect of the school’s preparation to respond to technical
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 91
problems is that teachers acknowledged that the school and district funded upgrades to
infrastructure and increased funding to hire additional technicians during the first year of the
program. Teachers revealed in interviews that there is a direct correlation between the quality of
the technology infrastructure and their confidence in the ability to use the technology.
While the ratings for infrastructure and related issues were generally mixed, the second
research question regarding the degree to which administrators considered teacher self-efficacy
in designing a technology plan were low. A theme that emerged from an analysis of the survey
data and interviewee responses was that the district and the high school did not develop a
comprehensive plan to design a 1:1 laptop initiative. There were discussions about what a
program should include, but the discussions did not result in a written plan. However, as
discussed below in response to research question four, the superintendent did initiate a bond
measure for which some elements of a written plan were developed. Regarding the involvement
of teachers in decision-making on the myriad aspects of a large scale 1:1 laptop program,
teachers gave overall poor ratings. This perception of a lack of teacher input was acknowledged
by the administrator interviews as well.
Data pertaining to the third research question on the quality of teacher professional
development and the impact of professional development on teacher self-efficacy revealed mixed
results. While teachers’ ratings on the helpfulness of the training was generally low, teachers’
response to a survey question about the possible positive impact of future professional
development on their teaching practices was high, with 100% of teachers indicating feelings
ranging from “strongly agree” to “somewhat agree.” The fact that teachers rated professional
development ineffective and indicated that future training would improve their confidence to
fully integrate the laptops into their teaching is contradictory, but it may speak to a general
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 92
teacher point of view that they are interested in increasing their capacity regarding use of the
laptops. To this point, Teacher A said,
I think we are starting to see some successes this year. I think we’re starting to see,
especially with the newer teachers who actually received some instructional technology
training while in college. We’re doing some more interesting things. So, we’re getting
there, but it’s going to take a while.
Finally, regarding the question about the school and/or district’s plans to sustain the
program by planning for an adequate budget and implementing a monitoring/evaluation process,
the study’s fourth research question, it was difficult to assess the plans or the planning process in
that the school and district did not engage in adequate planning before the program was
implemented, and planning after about a year was also lacking. Nevertheless, the superintendent
who assumed the position a year after the program began included some elements of planning in
the LCAP and committed to funding a technology survey using an independent firm.
Overall, the school and the district’s ability to establish well thought out plans and to
communicate such plans to stakeholders such as teachers may have been hampered by turnover
of key district leaders. The superintendent, the principal, an assistant principal, and the chief
technology officer all were replaced during the first year and one-half of the program. In
addition, as one administrator pointed out, the district faced many challenges during the
implementation of the program, such as a district switch to an early start of the school year,
Common Core, and the SBAC roll out. Because these occurrences are fairly common district
phenomena, the need for sufficient planning for an instructional technology program on the
magnitude of a 1:1 laptop initiative is evident.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 93
Chapter Five presents a discussion of the findings along with further conclusions and
implications of the research. Finally, recommendations for future research are included.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 94
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This chapter begins with a summary of pertinent sections from the first four chapters. In
addition, this chapter presents a review of limitations to the study that were determined upon
examination and reflection of the analysis of the data, a discussion of implications for other
secondary school educators regarding 1:1 laptop/tablet device initiatives, and a call for further
research on this subject.
Background
School site and district administrators may choose to implement 1:1 laptop/tablet device
initiatives for myriad reasons. Schools leaders face internal and external (Fullan & Quinn, 2015)
accountabilities to help their students master the skills that necessary to be successful in the 21st
century (Mouza, 2008; Wagner, 2008), to close the digital divide between students who have
access to technologies at home and those who do not (Garland & Wotton, 2002; Warschauer et
al., 2004), and to successfully implement Next Generation Science Standards (2016), California
State Standards and the California Assessment of Student Performance that students take via
computers (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007; SBAC, 2016). Furthermore, when developing plans to
implement a ubiquitous computer laptop/tablet device program, education leaders should ensure
that the components of a plan, outlined in the Purpose of the Study section below, also consider
the importance of teacher self-efficacy regarding technology as a teaching tool.
Re-Statement of the Problem
An initiative to implement laptops or tablet devices for every student in a high school can
be complex and expensive (Odden & Picus, 2015). The very nature of a large technology
program includes the purchase of the hardware and software licenses, professional development,
program monitoring, technology infrastructure upgrades (such as wireless systems), and on-
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 95
going device replacement and repair (Gerger, 2014). The ability to successfully address each of
these elements can be beyond the capacity of a school district. Further complicating the task is
that schools and school districts will have other important competing priorities, such as the need
to address school building facilities maintenance, budget shortfalls, decreasing or increasing
enrollments, bargaining with labor unions over employee salaries, and low student outcomes
such as graduation and college-going rates or test scores. (Fullan & Quinn, 2015). In addition,
the fact that a 1:1 laptop/device program will inevitably take a large percentage of the school and
district budget, time and energy, makes identifying the funds to implement an instructional
technology program and to achieve an adequate return on the technology investment (Odden &
Picus, 2015) particularly difficult.
Finally, school and district leaders are often acutely aware of the ramifications of
potential failures such as inability to achieve the stated goals and objectives, cost overruns, and
program abandonment. These types of failures can be detrimental to the school system and its
students. In addition to contributing to school leaders’ being fired, a loss of confidence on the
part of community and civic leaders, school board members, and stakeholders such as parents
can take years to repair.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and gain an understanding of how school and
district leaders who oversee Diversity High School (pseudonym) planned for and implemented a
1:1 computer laptop program. The study focused on how education leaders took quality
professional development into consideration (Gorder, 2008; Keengwe et al., 2008; Keppler et al.,
2014; Penuel, 2006), managed the change process (Chauncey, 2010; Fullan, 1999, 2004, 2007,
2011; Levin & Schrum, 2014), identified and secured adequate funding for a multi-year program
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 96
(Odden & Picus, 2015) ensured that the school’s technical infrastructure, such as Internet
connectivity, was sufficient (Gerger, 2014); and instituted a monitoring and evaluation process
(Marzano et al., 2005; Odden & Picus, 2015). This study is also concerned with how the
aforementioned elements ultimately affected teacher self-efficacy regarding their use of laptops
as an instructional tool (Hew & Brush, 2007; Fullan, 2007).
To this end, four research questions guided this study:
 How does the school’s technology infrastructure (Internet capacity, tablet device
upkeep/repair, etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy regarding technology implementation?
 To what degree did administrators, in designing a technology plan, consider teacher self-
efficacy?
 How does the school’s instructional professional development influence teacher self-
efficacy regarding technology implementation?
 How did the school district develop an instructional technology plan that includes a
budget and evaluation of the 1:1 initiative?
To gather this information, interviews, surveys and a document review were conducted at
Diversity High School and the school district. Once the data were collected, they were analyzed
and coded to identify trends in teacher responses as they relate to the program implementation
and how teacher self-efficacy about their use of technology was affected.
Summary of Results
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “How does the school’s technology infrastructure
(Internet capacity, tablet device upkeep/repair, etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy regarding
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 97
technology implementation?” Three themes emerged to affirm the research literature on this
subject:
First, the quality of the technical infrastructure does have an influence on teacher self-
efficacy. Researchers are clear that the quality of the school’s wireless system is a vital
component for any type of 1:1 program (Keppler et al., 2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al.,
2014). Results show that, although the district did make an initial investment in the technology
infrastructure before distributing the laptops, particularly upgrading the infrastructure’s capacity
to handle the pending needs for Internet connectivity, technical problems surfaced shortly after
implementation. Teacher interviewees reported that their self-efficacy was adversely affected by
the frequent shut downs of Internet connections, and 89.5% of teacher survey respondents agreed
with an item about the correlation between the speed and quality of the school’s technicians in
addressing Internet problems and their confidence using the Internet in their classrooms.
A positive finding, however, was that the district did respond in the early stages of
implementation to upgrade the system to handle the bandwidth needs. Nevertheless, one teacher
interviewee expressed concerns about the ability of the school’s infrastructure to keep up with
connectivity needs in the future when even more students are accessing the Internet at the same
time.
Second, an overall theme here is that the surveys and, more profoundly, the interviews,
revealed the importance of developing a complete plan to address infrastructure needs before the
project begins and to quickly resolve problems during the implementation phase.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “To what degree did administrators, in designing a
technology plan, consider teacher self-efficacy?” The theme that emerged is that Diversity High
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 98
School and school district leaders did not take teacher self-efficacy into consideration when
designing a technology plan, largely because there was little planning conducted overall. The
research literature highlighted the importance of teachers’ attitudes and perspectives regarding
integrating technology into their daily teaching and the impact this has on successful
implementation of a technology program (Hew & Brush, 2007; Kim et al., 2013). In addition,
there is an abundance of research that supports the idea that adoption of new innovation tends to
fail at the implementation level when there a plan to implement successfully is lacking (Fullan,
2007; Hall, 2010; Levin & Schrum, 2014). When asked by about the quality of the plans, both
district administrators and the principal agreed that they should have dedicated more time and
effort into all aspects of planning before the project began and that, in hindsight, teacher self-
efficacy is something that they should have been considered in such planning.
Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “How does the school’s instructional professional
development influence teacher self-efficacy regarding technology implementation?” Much
research exists on the relationship between teacher self-efficacy, professional development and
the impact on school instructional technology projects (Gorder, 2008; Keengwe et al., 2008;
Keppler et al., 2014; Penuel, 2006) and that one element of effective teacher professional
development regarding instructional technology is that teachers participate in the design of the
professional development (Gorder, 2008; Penuel, 2006). Again, because there was little planning
that involved teachers in a significant manner in any of the key aspects of a technology plan,
including for PD, the teachers and administrators interviewed clearly agreed that seeking more
teacher feedback would have been beneficial.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 99
In addition to agreeing with the idea that the school and district should have implemented
what the research literature shows regarding PD, the survey results are inconclusive and
somewhat contradictory. To the survey item that directly asked teachers to assess the positive
impact of PD on their confidence using the laptops as a teaching tool, 42.1% chose “somewhat
agree” with only 25.3% indicating “strongly agree” or “agree.” More teachers (31.6%) disagreed
with the statement than strongly agreed or agreed. In addition, 25.3% strongly agreed or agreed
that, after the laptop project had been underway for over a year and a half, they had confidence in
their “ability to fully integrate” the technology into their teaching and learning. However,
teachers also indicated that future training would improve their “confidence to fully integrate the
laptops into their teaching” by a large margin, with 100% agreeing or strongly agreeing. In
response to the seemingly contradictory survey responses that show low satisfaction with the PD
thus far, but high marks for the positive impact of future PD, teacher C opined that she was
optimistic about future PD because, although the frequency of school or district PD was
infrequent, when it did occur, it was helpful.
Research question 4
The fourth research question asked, “How did the school district develop an instructional
technology plan that includes a budget and evaluation of the 1:1 initiative?” Regarding the
budget part of the research question, a theme that verified the results found in the literature
(Keppler et al., 2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al., 2014) was that initial planning did include
allocation of resources to upgrading the wireless system prior to distributing the laptops and that
connectivity problems were addressed once the project was underway. In addition, this study
verified the research of Gerger (2014) and Odden and Picus (2015) in that the district realized the
importance of identifying a reliable source of funds to start the project by working with city and
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 100
community leaders to successfully float a bond. In addition, the superintendent who assumed the
position after the laptop project was underway allocated funding from the district’s LCAP dollars
to the project.
A second theme that surfaced was the importance of long-range planning, past the typical
3-year period when warranties end. The principal and both district administrators stressed the
need to consider initial costs and the maintenance costs of the devices chosen. Administrators
stated they would have chosen the less expensive Chromebook devices, rather than the laptops.
The principal and the district also investigated implementing a bring-your-own-device (BYOD)
option in the future. In addition, the administrators were concerned with what to do when the
warranties expired given that bond funds were insufficient to purchase new devices for all
students and that Local Control Funding Formula dollars may also not be sufficient to cover all
ongoing costs.
In addition to the brief discussion above regarding budgets, data pertaining to the second
part of the research question, evaluation of the program, also yielded two themes. In order to
effectively develop benchmarks to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the program during
implementation and summative evaluations at the end of each year, school leaders must first
determine the program’s goals and objectives (Huffman et al, 2013 and Bauter, 2013). The
surveys and interviews show the goals were not widely understood nor agreed to either at the
beginning or at the time of the study, a year and one-half into the project. The goals that were
roughly determined by the district, such as closing the digital divide and teaching 21st century
skills, were not clearly communicated and explained to the teachers. Although program goals
were not clearly articulated to teachers, the district allocated funds to contract with an outside
vendor, BrightBytes, to conduct surveys of students, families, community members and teachers
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 101
around 21st century skill building, infrastructure (at student homes and the school site), and
professional development. However, how administrators would respond to the BrightBytes data
was unclear. Overall, as is the case with other aspects of the findings, the teachers and
administrators agreed that the school and district planning should have been more intentional
and strategic.
Ancillary Findings
Although some researchers (Keppler et al., 2014) indicated that a secondary purpose of a
large-scale technology initiative, such a 1:1 laptop initiatives, could be to better market the
school and to recruit students who otherwise might not attend the school, Diversity High School
and the district made no efforts in this area despite the fact, per the LCAP and as corroborated by
district administrator B, that
The district has experienced fourteen consecutive years of declining enrollment. The
district has lost over 1,200 students, representing 1/3 of its population and revenue,
during that period. Since 2009, over 500 students have transferred to neighboring
districts, amounting to a loss of 5M and leaving the District’s eight schools operating at
about 50% capacity. A demographic study by Davis Demographics in 2016 found an
enrollment capture rate of 72% and projected continued declining enrollment between
2016 and 2022.
In addition, Diversity High School saw a decrease in enrollment from 1,226 in the 2008-
2009 academic term to 944 in the 2015-2016 term. However, information on the 1:1 program is
not prominently displayed in the school’s main office, nor is it clear on the school or district
websites. Furthermore, the principal also indicated that he does not talk to prospective parents
about the program, nor do they typically ask him about it in spite of the fact that district
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 102
administrator A said that only one nearby high school (in another school district) had not been
losing enrollment: one that happens to also be a 1:1 school.
In addition, two teacher interviewees indicated they saw an improvement in what one
considered student “agency” or “self-accountability.” Because students can now check their
grades online, Teacher A saw a general shift away from students typically asking, “What’s my
grade?” or “How am I doing?” to students now asking questions like, “What do I need to do to
get my grade up 3% so I can earn an ‘A’ grade.” She further stated that “it’s really powerful to
have students checking and monitoring their own progress in my class. A result is that students
now have a deal more self-efficacy. They take care of themselves.”
One possible marker of the district’s goal of closing the digital divide between students
who have access to laptops at home and those who do not is anecdotal evidence that district
administrator B said she and others saw regarding parents using student laptops when their
children play soccer on the school field. She said,
We’d see kids at soccer practice, and the parent’s van would be full of family members
all using the student’s laptops because they could get the school’s WIFI. Parents would
say they would picnic in front of the school so they could pick up the WIFI.
An issue that was not described in the literature review was the impact on changing
leaders had on the 1:1 program. Since the decision to seek a bond measure to fund the program,
the Diversity High School principal and at least one assistant principal, the technology director, a
district administrator whose duties included a role in the implementation; and the superintendent
all left their positions or left the district. One district administrator, the principal and two teacher
interviewees all indicated that changing administrative leadership adversely impacted the 1:1
initiative. The often-cited references in this study to the importance of sufficient planning is
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 103
relevant in that if effective plans were established (and codified in writing) and the primary
elements were understood to stakeholders, any negative results that resulted in leadership
changes may have been somewhat mitigated.
Also not addressed in the literature review was what is commonly referred to as digital
citizenship, meaning that students, teachers/staff and parents use the laptops ethically, take
responsibility the technology, and use the Internet in a responsible manner. Most of the
interviewees agreed this should have been emphasized with the students early in the
implementation phase. In addition, the BrightBytes survey revealed low overall results for
students and teachers in digital citizenship.
Implications
Three overarching elements are evident as education leaders consider a large-scale
technology program such as a 1:1 laptop initiative. It is imperative that school leaders understand
the importance of addressing teacher self-efficacy regarding their ability to fully integrate the
laptops into their teaching and student learning (Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013);
consistently communicate all aspects of the plan to teachers and relevant aspects of the plan to
students, parents and the community before and during program implementation (Bleakley &
Mangin, 2013; Dexter, 2011; Elmore, 2000; Hannafin & Vermillion, 2008; Leithwood & Reihl,
2003; Levin & Schrum, 2014; McNiff, 2014; Michaelis et al., 2010; Schrum et al., 2011); and
develop a multi-year plan to address issues listed below (Gerger, 2014; Saltinski, 2014; Blume,
2015). These three elements apply to the following specific issues.
First, leaders should be intentional about managing the change process (Chauncey, 2010;
Fullan, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2011; Levin & Schrum, 2014). School leaders must choose from the
many research-based theories or models of change management and build into all aspects of their
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 104
planning. This includes articulating a clear rationale for why the school/district is embarking on
the major change that a 1:1 laptop project is.
Second, leaders must include teachers in all stages and aspects of planning and
implementation (Silin, Mulford, & Zarins, 2002). This includes participating in the development
of the reason or rationale for the change; the development of the program goals, objectives and
benchmarks (progress monitoring); choosing the devices and software, including instructional
software and learning management system software; and identifying the needs for and designing
teacher professional development.
Third, it is important to provide initial (well before students receive their computers) and
PD (Gorder, 2008; Keengwe et al., 2008; Keppler et al., 2014; Penuel, 2006). As noted above,
teacher voice must be included in the design of the PD. In addition, the PD should be
differentiated so that the needs of teachers at varying levels of confidence and ability can be met.
Furthermore, the PD should be offered at times convenient for teachers, such during their
conference planning time and during regular paid PD time (Chesbro & Boxler, 2010). Although
hiring outside consultants and trainers can be effective, teachers teaching each other should also
be part of the PD process.
Fourth, the laptops or tablet device should be distributed to teachers well before the
students receive them, preferably a full year ahead, but at least one semester before (Levin &
Schrum, 2014). Teacher interviewees revealed that they were hampered by the fact that the
student laptops were different than the ones they used.
Fifth, sufficient funding must be identified and allocated for at least three years, but
preferably a longer term. Funding must be appropriate to provide PD listed above and for
infrastructure and progress monitoring needs (Gerger, 2014; Odden & Picus, 2015).
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 105
Sixth, the wireless Internet system should upgraded to satisfy the capacity needed to
support times when all students use their laptops or devices simultaneously ( Gerger, 2014;
Keppler et al., 2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al., 2014). Funding and technical staff must be
sufficient to address needs for systems repairs and upgrades that invariably tend to be necessary
once the program is underway. In addition to Internet connectivity, plans and funding must be in
place to ensure that repair needs of hardware and software are take place quickly. A system must
be in place so that students and teachers can receive a loaner device while waiting for the repair
or replacement is complete. Furthermore, a plan for when the initial warranties expire on the
hardware must also be addressed.
Seventh, stakeholders must be involved in making decisions about whether the students
will take the laptops home. If the decision is made in the affirmative, a process and sufficient
staffing must be developed to check laptops in and out at the end of the day to students whose
parents opt out of the take-home option. Regardless of whether the devices are taken home, a
plan to offer parents the opportunity to buy insurance on the devices or have the district fund
repairs or replacement of broken devices should be set.
Eighth, the program must include digital citizenship for students. Students should be
taught to be responsible for the equipment and be accountable and safe when online. Digital
citizenship should include teachers and staff, partly because they play an integral role in teaching
the students these issues, and parents as well. An effort should be made to infuse the components
of digital citizenship into the school culture.
Ninth, there is a need to implement a monitoring system at varying points during
implementation and to conduct annual evaluations (Fullan, 2011; Marzano et al., 2005). Any
monitoring system requires that a clear set of goals and objectives be established.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 106
Limitations
The Case Study Method
As the case study approach does not call for comparing schools or districts. Therefore, a
limitation of this study is that it was confined to one school and its district. In addition,
interviews were conducted from June through October, so it was not a long-term study deriving
data at varying stages of program implementation.
Self-Reporting Bias
Inherent in this type of study, where interviews and surveys are conducted, is the
limitation of respondent self-reporting (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). However, because
the primary purpose of a majority of the teacher survey and interview questions was to determine
their self-efficacy, there is a minor bias influence on the responses. While this is true regarding
the teacher responses, there may have also been a degree of self-reporting bias on the part of the
administrators interviewed.
Size of the School District
Another possible limitation is that the school district in which Diversity High School
resides has a relatively low student enrollment: 3,853. However, the enrollment of 944 for the
main subject of this study, Diversity High School, is typical of many high schools in California.
Nevertheless, a study of one school and school district limits extrapolation of the findings to all
schools (Maxwell, 2013)
Survey Response Rate of 42%
While the researcher employed many strategies to increase the response rate, the 42%
rate is a limitation. As Rogelberg et al. (2000) pointed out, non-respondents tend to have lower
job morale and commitment to the program than do respondents. Therefore, a limitation is that
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 107
the 42% of respondents in this study may have a slightly better perception of the 1:1 program
than would have been evident with a response rate of 50% or more.
Researcher Bias
To address potential researcher bias, member checking or respondent validation and
triangulation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013) were employed. The researcher asked
two teacher interviewees specific questions to clarify and to determine explanations for some of
the responses after analyzing the survey data and the responses from the first teacher interview.
Also, the researcher employed multiple means of data gathering: surveys, interviews of teachers
who may offer different perspectives, and a review of numerous documents.
Representativeness of the Respondents
Some researchers find that the overall representativeness of the respondents to the total
pool of possible respondents can have positive impact on validity (Brick & Kalton, 1996; Cook,
& Thomson, 2000; Groves, 2006). As is described in the methodology section above, an attempt
was made to have a varied group of teachers selected for the interviews. In addition, although the
demographics of the survey respondents closely mirrors the composition of the faculty, the
relative low number of teachers of math and science as survey respondents is a limitation.
Overall, as indicated above in the Case Study, Representativeness of the Respondents and
the Survey Response Rate sections, the limitations of this study reduce the generalizability of the
findings due to a lack of depth of perspective that a larger study would entail.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 108
Call for Further Research
The end of the Great Recession, the declining price of most hard and software, and
continuing internal and external pressures school leaders encounter regarding on-line mandated
tests, closing the digital divide, and bringing students to master 21st century skills, mean it is
likely that more schools and districts will implement technology initiatives such as 1:1, 2:1, or
BYOD programs. As this occurs, research on these schools that includes the first stages of
planning and effectiveness of the plans would be helpful to other educators as they initiate work
on these types of programs. In addition, the following are specific areas in need of future
research,
First, the impact on families whose students are able to take the laptop or tablet device
home should be addressed? Are parents and other family members actually using the devices to
access the Internet from home and/or access points that are open to the public such as libraries or
coffee shops? For families who use the device after school hours, are they able to use the Internet
to assist their children with homework and/or projects (particularly for students in middle
grades)? To what degree are parents/guardians monitoring student grades, attendance, or school
events by accessing school parent portals or learning management systems? And, to what degree
are parents/guardians using the devices to communicate with teachers and counselors regarding
their children’s progress?
Second, via qualitative studies, researchers should determine the impact of frequent use
of laptop or tablet devices in 1:1 programs on student self-efficacy regarding taking on-line
standardized tests such as the SBAC test. Do students feel more confident taking online tests?
Do students who take multiple SBAC formative assessments online during the school year report
they are better able to navigate the on-line tasks and use the test’s tools such the online
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 109
calculator? And do students report that they feel more comfortable taking other online tests like
college qualifying assessments, such as the SAT, ACT and college placement tests?
Third, it is important to assess the impact of the success of 1:1 or similar large
technology programs on various types of school districts and schools: large, small, urban,
suburban, and on levels of success between districts and schools with large and small numbers of
students who have access to technology at home. To assess levels of success, researchers would
have to agree on goals and objectives to determine success.
Fourth, equity issues may arise in districts and schools that choose to implement full or
elements of a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) option. Research may delve into the social-
emotional impact on students who have to use the school’s device or who do not have access to a
device if the school has a BYOD only program.
Fifth, research might delve into differences in districts and schools where students are
allowed to take the devices home and those where they are not. Similarly, because districts and
schools that do allow students to take home devices also allow parents/guardians to decline that
option, it would be interesting to study whether there are differences in learning between
students who take the devices home and those who do not.
Sixth, research should delve into schools with successful digital citizenship programs to
learn of the elements of successful programs. To what degree is there a culture at the school
where students are responsible with the actual device and use the Internet safely and responsibly,
and what steps did educators take to achieve this?
Seventh, research should compare a school with a 1:1 program on the degree to which the
laptops or tablet devices are fully integrated into daily teaching and student learning with a
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 110
school that has less than a 1:1 program, such as BYOD or a 2:1 (or 3:1) program, or with a
school that primarily uses laptop/tablet carts that are checked out to teachers.
Eighth, a longitudinal study could assess the degree to which districts and schools
improve on the issues examined in this study over a five-year period: teacher self-efficacy,
capacity of the school’s Internet system to provide access to all students, quality of the progress
monitoring system; PD effectiveness regarding full integration of the laptops into daily teaching
and student learning; and school leaders’ implementation of change management strategies.
The researcher recommends exploring the case studies of Burciaga (2017), Zegarra
(2017), and Anders (2017) for implications and conclusions regarding the implementation of 1:1
technology in urban and suburban southern California high schools, particularly the importance
of addressing teacher self-efficacy.
Conclusion
School leaders are challenged to address crucial student needs such as providing them
with laptop or tablet devices they cannot access at home, bringing them to master skills
necessary for success in college and in the increasingly complex national and world economy,
commonly referred to as 21st century skills, and ensuring they are comfortable and experienced
with taking high stakes on-line assessments, such as SBAC, SAT, and ACT. As a result, a
growing number of school leaders consider providing laptops or similar devices to their students.
In addition, and arguably more important, ubiquitous use of technology devices presents the
potential for significantly improving teaching and student learning, not as a magical solution, but
in a fully integrated manner where students use the technology to engage in learning activities
that are not possible without the technology.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 111
In order to make the aforementioned broad goals come to fruition, school, district and
teacher leaders must develop plans that address teacher self-efficacy, the school’s hardware,
software and infrastructure capacity so that the devices can be used without interruptions,
sufficient progress monitoring with the requisite agreement to and clearly communicated
program goals and objectives, effective PD, and sufficient funding to successfully implement the
elements listed above. Nonetheless, both the challenges and the means to address them, as
discussed in this study, can be daunting. As Odden and Picus (2015) pointed out, if large scale
technology projects were easy to implement, more schools would be conducting them than
currently are.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 112
References
An, Y.-J., & Reigeluth, C. (2012). Creating technology-enhanced, learner -centered classrooms:
K-12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 28, 54-62. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujdl20
Anders, R. (2017). Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology at the secondary school
level: Considering Teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Aslan, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2011). A Trip to the past and future of educational computing:
Understanding its evolution. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(1), 1–17.
Retrieved from www.cedtech.net/articles/21/211.pdf
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barshay, J. (2014). Why a New Jersey school district decided giving laptops to students is a
terrible idea. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/new-jersey-school-district-
decided-giving-laptops-students-terrible-idea/
Bauter, C. (2013). A case study of 1:1 technology policies in four Texas high schools and their
relationship to practice (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UNT Digital Library.
(407819)
Bebell, D., & O’Dwyer, L. M. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing
settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9, 1-15. Retrieved from
ERIC database. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ873675.pdf
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 113
Bichelmeyer, B., & Molenda, M. (2006). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Gradual
growth atop tectonic shifts. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 31, 3–32. doi:
10.1007/978-1-4419-1516-0_3
Bleakley, D. A., & Mangin, M. M. (2013). Easier said than done: Leading technology
integration. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 16, 14–26.
doi:10.1177/1555458912475213
Blume. (2015). New report finds ongoing iPad and technology problems at L.A. Unified. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-critical-
lausd-tech-report-20150902-story.html
Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the construct “just right?”
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103–128.
doi:http://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2013.10782615
Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2007). Video podcasting in perspective: The history, technology,
aesthetics, and instructional uses of a new medium. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 36(1), 3–17.
Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2008). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Making the
most of mobility and ubiquity. Educational Media and Technology yearbook2, 33, 4–16.
Burciaga, M. (2017). Leadership and implementation of a 1:1 technology initiative at a southern
California comprehensive high school: Considering teacher self-efficacy in technology
implementation. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA.
California Department of Education. (2015). Data quest. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/EthnicEnr.aspx?cType=ALL&cGender=B&cY
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 114
ear=2014-15&Level=School&cSelect=Burroughs+High--1964337-
1931237&cChoice=SchEnrEth
Charnitski, C. W., & Harvey, F. W. (2007). Powerful new tools for more effective and efficient
research on learning and teaching. Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 32, 48–
55. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/series/8617
Chauncey, C. T. (2010). Strategic priorities for school improvement: No. 6 in the Harvard
Education Letter Spotlight Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
Chesbro, P., & Boxler, N. (2010). Weaving the fabric of professional development in the 21st
century through technology. Journal of Staff Development, 31(1), 48–70. Retrieved from
www.nsdc.org |
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Davis, D., Garas, N., Hopstock, P., Kellum, A., & Stephenson, T. (2005). Henrico County Public
Schools iBook survey report. Arlington, VA: Henrico County Public Schools.
Demeulle, L., Lowther, D. L., & Morrison, G. R. (1998). Integrating computer technology into
the classroom. Prentice-Hall.
Dexter, S. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 115
School Leadership, 21, 166–189.
DDunleavy, M., Dexter, S., & Heinecke, W. F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student to
laptop ratio bring to technology-supported teaching and learning? Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 23, 440–452. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00227.x
Earle, R. S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises
and challenges. Educational Technology, 42(1), 5–13. Retrieved from
http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:T-ke9I1HqaIJ:scholar.google.com/
+Rodney,+2002+technology+integration&hl=en&as_sdt=0,36&as_vis=1
Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology
innovations. Journal on Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 298–305.
Ensminger, D. C., & Surry, D. W. (2008). Relative ranking of conditions that facilitate
innovation implementation in the USA, 24(5), 611–626.
Ensminger, D. C., Surry, D. W., Porter, B. E., & Wright, D. (2004). Factors Contributing to the
Successful Implementation of Technology Innovationsweaving the fabric of professional
development. Educational Technology & Society, 7, 61–72. http://doi.org/10.1.1.126.3225
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42(3), 255–284. http://doi.org/GALE|A221849729
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § 114 Stat. 1177 (2015-2016).
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership across the system. Insight. Retrieved from
http://www.michaelfullan.ca/articles_04/2004_leadership/2004_leadership.htm

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 116
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Seminar Series 204,
(April), 1–22.
Fullan, M. & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,
and Systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Garland, V. E., & Wotton, S. E. (2002). Bridging the Digital Divide in Public Schools.
J. Educational Technology Systems, 30(2), 115–123.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in Online
learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–
148. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2
Gaynor, I. W., & Fraser, B. J. (2003). Online collaborative projects: A journey for two Year 5
technology rich classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.waier.org.au/forums/
2003/gaynor.html
Gerger, K. (2014). 1:1 tablet technology implementation in the manhattan bech unified school
disttrict: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). California State University, Long Beach.
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (3647116)
Glaser, B. S., & Strauss, A. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. London, UK: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Gorder, L. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the
classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63–76. Retrieved from http://www.dpe.org/
core/home.htm

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 117
Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, R. (2010). The technology factor:
Nine keys to student achievement and cost-effectiveness. Retrieved from
https://www.k12blueprint.com/sites/default/files/Project-RED-Technolgy-Factor.pdf
Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology’s achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal
of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 231-253.
Hall, G. E. (2013). Evaluating change processes. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3),
264–289. http://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311311474
Hannafin, R. D., & Vermillion, J. R. (2008). K-12 technology audit: Lessons for school leaders.
International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 12.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
41(February 2015), 393–416. http://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536
Hartnell, C. a, Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational
effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical
suppositions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677–694.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021987
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into k-12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Rsearch
and Development, 55(3), 223–252. http://doi.org/10.1007/s
Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and
technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 43(4), 343–367. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 118
Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases
integration of technology into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
21(1), 37–56. http://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.659894
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2010). A national survey of barriers to integrating information
and communication technologies into literacy instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/407273/A_National_Survey_of_Barriers_to_Integrating_Informa
tion_and_Communication_Technologies_into_Literacy_Instruction
International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE Standards for Teachers.
Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-
T_PDF.pdf
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the Classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Prentice-
Hall, Inc.
Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with
technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Jones, R. G. (2003). Emerging technologies blogs and Wikis: Environments for On-line
Collaboration Language. Learning & Technology, 7(2), 12–16.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). The use of computer tools to support
meaningful learning. AACE Journal, 16, 77–92.
Keppler, M., Weiler, S. C., & Maas, D. (2014). Focused Ubiquity: A purposeful approach to
providing students with laptops. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 278–288.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 119
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60–70.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge
in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers &
Education, 49(3), 740–762. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012
Lane, D. M. (2003). Early evidence from the field. The Maine Learning Technology Initiative:
Impact on students and learning occasional paper. Portland, ME: Center for Education
Policy, Applied Research and Evaluation.
Larson, L. C., & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121–123. http://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Lee, M., & Winzenried, A. (2009). The use of instructional technology in schools: Lessons to be
learned. Camberwell, Australia: ACER Press.
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2008). One-to-one computing: What does it bring to schools? Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 39(2), 97–122. http://doi.org/10.2190/EC.39.2.a
Levin, B., & Schrum, L. (2014). Lessons learned from secondary schools using technology for
school improvement. Journal of School Leadership, 24(4), 640–665.
Li, S. C. (2010). Social capital, empowerment and educational change: A scenario of permeation
of one-to-one technology in school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(4), 284–
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 120
295. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00350.x
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From Research
to Results. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and Curriculum Development.
Matzen, N., & Edmunds, J. a. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 417–
430.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.) (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: SAGE.
McNiff, M. (2014). Leading complex decision-making in technology integration investment: A
descriptive case study over time of the leadership roles in the decision making process of a
New England school district (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Digital Repository
Service. (349655)
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Michaelis, B., Stegmaier, R., & Sonntag, K. (2010). Shedding light on followers’ innovation
implementation behavior: The role of transformational leadership, commitment to change,
and climate for initiative. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(4), 408–429.
http://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011035304
Moersch, C. (2013a). H.E.A.T. framework. Retrieved from http://loticonnection.com/index.php/
school-improvement/frameworks/42-heat-framework
Moersch, C. (2013b). Level of teaching innovation framework. Retrieved from
http://loticonnection.cachefly.net/global_documents/LoTi_Framework_Sniff_Test.pdf

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 121
Moersch, C. (2015a). Current instructional practices. Retrieved from http://loticonnection.com/
index.php/school-improvement/frameworks/5-cip-framework
Moersch, C. (2015b). Personal computer use framework. Retrieved from
http://loticonnection.cachefly.net/global_documents/PCU_Framework.pdf
Mouza, C. (2008). Learning with laptops: Implementation and outcomes in an urban, under-
privileged school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(4), 447–472.
http://doi.org/Article
NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2015). 2015 Wyoming recalibration report. Retrieved from
www.picusodden.com/2015-wyoming-recalibration-report
Overbay, A., Mollette, M., & Vasu, E. S. (2011). A technology plan that works. Educational
Leadership, 68, 56–59. Retrieved from http://navigator-
esu.passhe.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN
=58108048&site=ehost-live
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning.
http://doi.org/http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/framework_flyer_updated_jan_0
9_final-1.pdf
Patton M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A
research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
http://doi.org/1.541.302.3777
Richardson, W. (2013). Students first, not stuff. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 10–14.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 122
Saltinski, R. (2014). Ethics and technology: The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Los Angeles
USD iPad project. Paper presented at the National Technology and Social Science
Conference. San Francisco, CA.
Saavedra A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century
teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 8–13. doi:10.1177/003172171209400203
Schmidt, M., Weinstein, T., Niemic, R., & Walberg, H. J. (1985). Computer-assisted instruction
with exceptional children. The Journal of Special Education, 19(4), 493–501.
Schonfield, J. W. (1995). Comptuer and classroom culture. Cambridge University Press.
Schrum, L., Galizio, L. M., & Ledesma, P. (2011). Educational leadership and technology
integration: An investigation into preparation, experiences, and roles. Journal of School
Leadership, 21(March), 241–261.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching : Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.
Silberman, H. F. (1962). Application of research on programmed instruction to school systems.
Ft. Belvoir, VA.
Silvernail, D. L., & Harris, W. J. (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative teacher,
student, and school perspectives: Mid-year evaluation report. Portland, ME: Maine
Education Policy Research Institute.
Simonson, M. (2007). Course management systems. Quarterly Review of Distance Education,
8(1), 7–9.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 123
Silins, H.C., Mulford, W.R., & Zarins, S. (2002). Organiational learning and school change.
Educational Administrative Quarterly, 38(5), 613-642.
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2016). Smarter Assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments/
Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our time. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Trimmel, M., & Bachmann, J. (2004). Cognitive, social, motivational and health aspects of
students in laptop classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 151–158.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00076.xTyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995).
Tinkering toward utopia. Harvard University Press.
Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2003). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom
technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253–271.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2004.10782415
Venezky, R., & Osin, L. (1991). The intelligent design of computer-assisted instruction. New
York, New York: Longman.
Wagner, T. (2008). The seven survival skills for careers, college, and citizenship. The Global
Achievement Gap: Why Even Our Best Schools Don’t Teach the New Survival Skills Our
Children Need- and What We Can Do about It, 202–5.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411409429
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and Equity in Schooling:
Deconstructing the Digital Divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588.
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 124
http://doi.org/10.1177/0895904804266469
Warschauer, M., Matuchniak, T., Pinkard, N., & Gadsden, V. (2010). New Technology and
Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes. Review of
Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. http://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09349791
Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2007). Internet Access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2005.
Education, 1994–2005.
Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003). E-learning: emerging
uses, emperical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and
Development, 7(4), 245–258.
Weston, M. E., & Bain, A. (2010). The end of techno-critique: The naked truth about 1:1 laptop
Initiatives and educational change. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and
Assessment, 9(6), 1–26. http://doi.org/www.jtla.org
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer
school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American
Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
Woodward, J., & Reith, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in Special
Education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 203–536.
Zheng, B., Arada, K., Niiya, M., & Warschauer, M. (2014). One-to-one laptops in K-12
classrooms: voices of students. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 9(4), 279–299.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2014.955499
Zuber, E. N., & Anderson, J. (2013). The initial response of secondary mathematics teachers to a
one-to-one laptop program. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25(2), 279–298.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-012-0063-2
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 125
Zucker, A. (2009). Assessment made Easy: Students flourish in a one-to-one laptop program.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(8), 18–21.
Zucker, A. A., & McGhee, R. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and
science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools. Arlington,
VA.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 126
Appendix A
Teacher Survey Protocol

INTRODUCTION
I invite you to participate in a web-based online survey on the planning and implementation of
the 1:1 laptop/tablet device that your school provides to all students. This is a research project
being conducted by Gary P. Garcia, a graduate doctoral (Ed.D) student at the University of
Southern California. It should take approximately 7 minutes to complete. Neither your name nor
your school name will be identified in the dissertation report.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your survey answers will be sent to a link at SurveyMonkey.com where data will be stored in a
password protected electronic format. Survey Monkey does not collect identifying information
such as your name, email address, or IP address. Therefore, your responses will remain
anonymous. No one will be able to identify you or your answers, and no one will know whether
or not you participated in the study.

At the end of the survey you will be asked if you are interested in participating in an additional
interview in person at this high school. If you choose to provide contact information such as your
phone number or email address, your survey responses may no longer be anonymous to the
researcher. However, no names or identifying information would be included in any publications
or presentations based on these data, and your responses to this survey will remain confidential.
You will also have the option of volunteering to be interviewed by completing a response card
and giving/sending it to the researcher.

Thank you for taking the time during your busy day to complete this survey.

Gary P. Garcia

QUESTIONS:
1. Number of years I have been a teacher

1-3 years

4 – 10 years

11+ years

2. Number of years I have taught at this school
0 – 3 years 4 – 10 years 11+ years

3. Subject you teach
English
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 127
Math
Science
History
PE
Arts (visual or performing)
Special Education
Other elective
TOSA
“Fully integrated technology ” definition:
Effective technology integration occurs when teachers use the laptop or computer device as a
teaching tool and students it as a learning tool on a daily basis. An example of student
integration of the technology is where they use it to obtain relevant information in a timely
manner, analyze and synthesize the information, and present it professionally.
4. Before the 1:1 (one computer for each student) laptop or tablet device project began, I
had confidence in my ability to fully integrate a laptop or tablet device into my teaching
and student learning.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
5. Since the inception of the 1:1 laptop or tablet device program, this school’s technology
professional development has increased/improved my confidence to fully integrate the
device into my teaching and student learning.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

6. Additional professional development in the future, will increase/improve my confidence
to fully integrate the laptop or tablet device into my teaching and student learning.

Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. Since the inception of the school’s 1:1 laptop or tablet device program, the technology
professional development has increased/improved ability to operate (for example, how to
use Windows 10) the laptop or tablet device.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

I already knew how to operate the laptop or tablet device before it was issued to me

8. Since the inception of the school’s 1:1 laptop or tablet device program, the technology
professional development has increased/improved my confidence to use the Internet as a
teaching and student learning tool.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 128
9. The 1:1 laptop or tablet device program has improved my ability to teach students 21
st

century skills (innovation, collaboration, assessment and analysis of information,
communication).
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

10. Before the 1:1 laptop or tablet device program started at my school, I believed that it
could contribute to improving my teaching and student learning .
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
11. I currently believe that a 1:1 laptop or tablet device program can contribute to improving
my teaching and student learning.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
12. I understand the process to ask for tech support regarding a problem with the laptop or
tablet device, software, Internet, etc.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
13. The connection in my classroom to the Internet is fast and reliable enough to handle use
in my classroom when all students are on-line.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
14. The school’s response to a problem with the technology (e.g. device breaks or stops
working, problem with the software or Internet,etc.) is fast and reliable enough to meet
the needs in my classroom.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
15. The speed in which problems with the computer and/or the Internet are fixed, contributes
to my confidence in using the technology in my classroom.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
16. I understand the school and/or district goals regarding the 1:1 laptop or tablet device
program.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

17. I understand how the school and/or district is monitoring and evaluating the 1:1 laptop or
tablet device initiative.
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

18. During the development of the 1:1 laptop or tablet device program (prior to
implementation), teachers were consulted (about the program).
Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
19. I would be willing to participate in an approximately 30 minute interview with the
researcher.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 129
Yes No

20. If you marked, “yes” to question 19, please complete a response card available from the
researcher.

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 130
Appendix B
Teacher Interview Protocol

INTRODUCTION
I invite you to participate in a web-based online survey on studying the planning and
implementation of the one-to-one laptop/tablet device that your school provides to all
students. This is a research project being conducted by Gary P. Garcia, a graduate Ed.D student
at the University of Southern California. It should take approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Neither your name nor your school name will be identified in the dissertation report.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your survey answers will be sent to a link at SurveyMonkey.com where data will be stored in a
password protected electronic format. Survey Monkey does not collect identifying information
such as your name, email address, or IP address. Therefore, your responses will remain
anonymous. No one will be able to identify you or your answers, and no one will know whether
or not you participated in the study.

At the end of the survey you will be asked if you are interested in participating in an additional
interview in person at ________ High School. If you choose to provide contact information such
as your phone number or email address, your survey responses may no longer be anonymous to
the researcher. However, no names or identifying information would be included in any
publications or presentations based on these data, and your responses to this survey will remain
confidential.

1. How would you describe “full integration” of computers into the curriculum, your
teaching and student learning? In other words, what would “full integration” look like in
your school?

Sample follow up:
What has helped or hindered your ability to fully integrate the technology?

2. Have you been a member of the faculty since the beginning of the 1:1 program?

Follow-up question if the answer is, “No.” When did you join the faculty?

3. Before the 1:1 project was launched, briefly describe your level of confidence about your
ability to integrate the computers into your teaching and student learning.
Sample follow up:
What would account for your level of self-confidence?

Briefly describe your computer skills prior to the program implementation.
Name
Subject
Years
1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 131
Briefly describe your level of expertise in integrating computers into your teaching and
student learning prior to the program implementation.

4. After you have participated in the school or district professional development for ___
months or years, to what extent has your level confidence in using the computers in the
classroom increased or decreased?

Sample follow up:

What would account for the increase or decrease in self-confidence?

5. What are the overall goals of the district’s 1:1 program?

Follow up:
How have the goals been communicated to you?

6. Please describe the 1:1 program PD?

To what degree are using the computers to teach students 21
st
century skills a goal of the
program?

7. Briefly describe the strengths of the 1:1 program PD.

8. To what extent were teachers involved in the development of the 1:1 training?

9. How could the PD be improved to meet your needs?

10. How would you rate the effectiveness of the Internet connection at your school?
Sample follow up:
Is the connection fast enough to serve all your students at the same time?

Is the connection reliable or does it sometimes slow down or stop during use?

Do you know if the school or district made efforts to improve or upgrade the Internet
connection? For example, were there upgrades in bandwidth and the wi-fi system?

How does the speed and reliability affect your teaching when you use computers?

11. How would you rate the effectiveness of the school’s ability to fix computer problems?

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 132
12. Briefly describe how the 1:1 computer program is being monitored or evaluated now and
in the future?

13. Briefly describe how an effective 1:1 computer program can be in improving teaching
and student learning?

14. To what extent has the implementation of the 1:1 computer program been successful?

Sample follow up:
What specifically has contributed to the success(es)?

What specifically has contributed to any lack of success?

15. If you were to advise another school preparing to implement a 1:1 program, what advice
would you give them?

Sample follow up:
What would you do differently?

What would you recommend doing the same?

Thank you

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 133
Appendix C
Administrator Interview Protocol
INTRODUCTION
I invite you to participate in a web-based online survey on studying the planning and
implementation of the one-to-one laptop/tablet device that your school provides to all
students. This is a research project being conducted by _________, a graduate Ed.D student at
the University of Southern California. It should take approximately 20 minutes to complete.
Neither your name nor your school name will be identified in the dissertation report.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your survey answers will be sent to a link at SurveyMonkey.com where data will be stored in a
password protected electronic format. Survey Monkey does not collect identifying information
such as your name, email address, or IP address. Therefore, your responses will remain
anonymous. No one will be able to identify you or your answers, and no one will know whether
or not you participated in the study.

At the end of the survey you will be asked if you are interested in participating in an additional
interview in person at _____ high school. If you choose to provide contact information such as
your phone number or email address, your survey responses may no longer be anonymous to the
researcher. However, no names or identifying information would be included in any publications
or presentations based on these data, and your responses to this survey will remain confidential.

1. Please briefly describe your role in the district as it applies to the 1:1 program.

Have you been involved in the program since its inception?

If yes, have you been in your current position since its inception?

2. What stage is the district’s 1:1 program? In other words, how many years has the
program been in progress?

3. Please briefly describe the reasons why your district implemented this program?

How were schools chosen?

Were equity or digital divide issues considered in rationale for the program?

4. Please describe the implementation process, including planning.

5. What are the desired outcomes of the 1:1 program?

6. How have the outcomes or goals of the 1:1 program been communicated to stakeholders?

1:1 COMPUTER PROGRAM AND TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY 134
Follow up:
To what degree were 21st student century skills considered in determining the program
desired outcomes or goals?

7. Please describe the process for developing teacher training or PD program.

Follow up:
To what degree were teachers included in the development of the PD program?

8. To what degree has the district considered teacher self-efficacy regarding their use of
computers in the classrooms?

What is the level of self-efficacy regarding the use of computers in their classrooms?

9. To what degree was change management considered when developing the 1:1 program
implementation phase.

If you did, which framework or theory did you use?

10. Please describe how funding was obtained to support the program.

Follow up:
How many years of funding have been allocated?

Are there funds to go past the first phase of implementation?

Describe what the allocation is funding.

11. Please describe the monitoring and evaluation component to the 1:1 program.

12. Please describe how the district planned to ensure that the Internet wi-fi bandwidth is
capable of handling the volume of use at the school.

13. Please describe how the district planned to ensure that the devices are maintained and
repaired in a timely manner.

14. Please describe what you would consider the successes or strengths of the 1:1 program at
this time.

15. Please briefly describe what you would have done differently regarding the 1:1 program.

16. Would you allow me to review any district plans, evaluations and other documents
regarding the 1:1 program?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract School leaders look toward one-to-one laptop or tablet device programs as one way to meet challenges regarding state Common Core Standards, Next Generation Science Standards and their on-line assessments, helping students master 21st century skills and closing the digital divide between students who have access to technology at home and those who do not. This mixed-methods study focused on a public high school and its implementation of a 1:1 computer laptop program. At the time of the study, the high school was approximately a year and a half into implementation. The study’s research questions were (1) How does the school’s technology infrastructure (Internet capacity, laptop upkeep/repair, etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy? (2) To what degree did administrators, in designing a technology plan, consider teacher self-efficacy? (3) How does the school’s professional development influence teacher self-efficacy? And (4) how did the school district develop an instructional technology plan that includes a budget and evaluation of the 1:1 initiative? The methodology included an on-line survey of the high school teachers and six interviews: the principal, two district-level administrators and three teachers. The study found it is imperative that school leaders understand the importance of developing a detailed, multi-year plan prior to implementation that addresses factors that influence teacher self-efficacy such as an Internet system that meets the needs of the school, a professional development (PD) program that includes teachers’ voice in determining PD needs, and a progress monitoring and program evaluation process that is clearly communicated to stakeholders.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Leadership and implementation of 1:1 technology: considering teacher self-efficacy in the implementation process

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...

PDF

Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...

PDF

Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study

PDF

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

PDF

One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom

PDF

English language learners meeting the Common Core: do principals make a difference?

PDF

TikToking and Instagramming: following high school teacher influencers' roles in supporting and informing teacher practices

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Response to intervention: factors that facilitate and impede the process of implementation for administrators of Head Start preschools

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles County

PDF

The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study

PDF

Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

Professional learning communities: secondary site and district leaders’ role in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcia, Gary P. (author)

Core Title Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high school and implications for education leaders

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/16/2017

Defense Date 01/10/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag 1:1 laptop program,instructional technology planning,instructional technology professional development,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher self-efficacy

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Pedro E. (committee chair), Castruita, Rudy (committee member), Garcia, John (committee member)

Creator Email gary.p.garcia@lausd.net,gpgarcia@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-340255

Unique identifier UC11255850

Identifier etd-GarciaGary-5079.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-340255 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarciaGary-5079.pdf

Dmrecord 340255

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Garcia, Gary P.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA