University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION 1
LEADERSHIP AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 1:1 TECHNOLOGY: CONSIDERING
TEACHER SELF-EFFICACY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

by

Anthony Zegarra

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 Anthony Zegarra

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my God, beautiful wife and three sons. Without their support
throughout this process I would not have been able to complete this journey and life goal. I also
want to thank my mother for babysitting my boys as I wrote this dissertation on countless
Saturday afternoons.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Pedro Garcia
(dissertation chair), Dr. Rudy Castruita, and Dr. John Garcia for all of their guidance throughout
this process. I want to acknowledge my teammates Manuel Burciaga, Robyn Anders, and Gary
Garcia, and the rest of the 2017 cohort. I will forever cherish the Thursday nights we spent
together and all of the time spent growing as professionals. Fight On!
I would like to thank and acknowledge Suburban High School for allowing me to conduct
my study and being open throughout the process.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 4
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 Gary Garcia. 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 examined best
practices in the area of leadership and the consideration of teacher-self-efficacy in implementing
1:1 technology programs.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 5
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Preface 4
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 10
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 16
Significance of the Study 17
Limitations and Delimitations 18
Definition of Terms 18
Organization of the Study 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 21
History of Technology in Education 21
The Digital Divide 23
21st Century Skills 24
The Process of Change 28
Teacher Efficacy 32
Climate, Culture, and Professional Development 33
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework 35
Technology Plans and Policy 36
Needed Resources and Sustainability 40
Leadership and the Communication of Goals and a Vision 41
Conclusion 44
Chapter Three: Methodology 45
Restatement of Problem 45
Purpose, and Research Questions 46
Design Summary 46
Participants and Setting 48
Instrumentation and Protocols 50
Data Collection Protocols 52
Data Analysis 53
Ethical Considerations 54
Summary 54
Chapter Four: Findings 55
Methodology 55
Participants 56
Coding of Data 59
Purpose of the Study 59
Guiding Questions 60
Findings for Research Question 1 60
Findings for Research Question 2 67
Findings for Research Question 3 78
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 6
Findings for Research Question 4 87
Summary 93
Chapter Five: Discussion 95
Background 95
Statement of the Problem 95
Purpose of the Study 96
Research Questions 96
Summary of the Findings 97
Emergent Themes 99
Limitations 99
Implications for Practice 99
Recommendations for Future Research 100
Conclusion 101
References 102
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter 117
Appendix B: Teacher Survey Protocol 118
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol 122
Appendix D: Administrator Interview Protocol 124

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Fullan’s (1999, 2007) Theories of Change 32
Figure 2: TPACK 35
Figure 3: Years Teaching 58
Figure 4: Years at this School 58
Figure 5: Subjects Taught 59
Figure 6: Classroom Internet Connection 64
Figure 7: Response to Technology Problems 65
Figure 8: Repair Speed 65
Figure 9: Understand Tech Support Process 66
Figure 10: Teachers Consulted Prior to Implementation 72
Figure 11: Beliefs Regarding Contribution 73
Figure 12: Current Beliefs 74
Figure 13: Improved Ability 75
Figure 14: Understand Goals 77
Figure 15: Prior Confidence 81
Figure 16: Increased Confidence in Integration 82
Figure 17: Increased Confidence in Internet Use 83
Figure 18: Additional Professional Development 84
Figure 19: Increased Ability 85
Figure 20: Understand Monitoring and Evaluation 92

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 8
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify and gain an understanding of how district leaders who
oversee Suburban High School, a Southern California public comprehensive high school,
planned for and implemented a 1:1 technology program using both computer laptops and tablet
devices and took teacher self-efficacy into account through the implementation process. Data
were collected and triangulated using a mixed-methods approach. The data revealed that teacher
self-efficacy was a major consideration from the start of the technology initiative and that
teachers felt supported, especially with professional development provided by the district.
Further, the district secured funding to sustain the program for many years to come and was clear
in communicating program expectations internally and externally. Findings support research on
self-efficacy, planning for instruction, sustainability and continued monitoring of program goals.
Keywords: 1:1 technology, technology implementation, teacher self-efficacy

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 9
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 10
& 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. 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 that also technology standards (Next
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 11
Generation Science Standards, 2016). A result of the new 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.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 12
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
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
in 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 reveals designers of the laptop or tablet device program must plan for six issues at all
stages of the implementation phase (beginning and ongoing): consideration of the change process
during the beginning implementation phase; adequate infrastructure, such as access to the
Internet, tablet device repair and maintenance; program monitoring and evaluation; identification
of sufficient funding to provide start-up and ongoing sustainability; an effective professional
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 13
development program; and attention to how the aforementioned issues affect teacher self-
efficacy, which is the focus of this study.
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 et al. (2005) maintain 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
computers are used, even when they are eventually repaired or replace. Adequate infrastructure
also includes the school’s provision to teachers of the necessary software for classroom
application (Keppler, Weiler, & Maas, 2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng, Arada, Niiya, &
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 14
Warschauer, 2014). In addition, the school’s ability to properly maintain software and hardware
has a direct impact on the program’s sustainability. For example, repairs not made at early
stages of breakdown may cost more than repairs made in a timely manner.
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, Waters, and McNulty (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.
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 find that what teachers
think about a particular reform effort is crucial to the plan’s success (Fullan, 2007). This overall
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 15
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 computers in a 1:1 format. As noted, the pressure on school leaders to
address the challenges has been intense 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.
Statement of the Problem
Implementation of 1:1 device programs 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,
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 16
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 in 2011 (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 now heeded
nationally as a cautionary tale, with school districts seeking more information and research in
order to properly implement, so all students have access. Processes should be driven by a vision
that all stakeholders see clearly. This is where educational leaders need to have the appropriate
leadership traits to avoid failure. There is a value in state-of-the-art technology being in the
hands of students 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 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.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and gain an understanding of how the district
leaders who oversee Suburban High School (pseudonym) planned for and implemented a 1:1
technology initiative using both computer laptops and tablet devices. The study focused on how
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 17
education leaders took quality professional development into consideration, managed the change
process, identified and secured adequate funding for a multi-year program, ensured the school’s
technical infrastructure, instituted a monitoring and evaluation process and considered self-
efficacy regarding the use of the computers. 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, 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 answer the research questions, interviews, surveys and document review were
conducted at Suburban High School. Once the data were collected, they were analyzed and
coded to identify trends in teacher responses as they relate to their self-efficacy regarding their
use of technology and to how site and district administration took teacher self-efficacy into
consideration in planning.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it adds to the growing body of the literature on technology
implementation and strategies for leaders to consider in rolling out technology in their schools
and districts. In addition, answers to the questions above and identifying best practices, may be
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 18
useful to school districts, administrators and teachers in supporting a technology roll out and
creating sustainable infrastructures to maintain access for students and staff. Finally, the
implications and recommendations provided within this study will provide ideas and insights
currently in practice that may be used as a springboard to start additional technology rollouts
empowering students with the information available on the Internet and prepare more 21st
century ready students for our ever-changing world.
Limitations and Delimitations
Delimitations include the fact that one school was the subject of the study as well as the
small sample of educators interviewed. Limitations were also present in the time available to
conduct the study as well as the small sample of schools and personnel selected for the study.
The limitations reduce the generalizability of the findings due to the small sample and lack of
depth of perspective. Self-reported data from teacher surveys and interviews regarding self-
efficacy relied on only those who were either interviewed or who responded to the survey. The
responses do not include the entire staff and are, therefore, difficult to generalize. Another
limitation was that this was a case study, and all findings were unique to Suburban High School.
The findings are, therefore, also difficult to generalize, but do offer deep and rich insight to the
creation and implementation of a 1:1 device initiative.
Definition of Terms
The terms below are used throughout the study:
 1:1 technology: Any form of tablet device the student has access to throughout the school
day or part of the school day.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 19
 Infrastructure: The components necessary to sustain the technology initiative that is to be
put in place. Examples of infrastructure could include access points, power for tablet
devices, and Internet bandwidth.
 Implementation: The process of putting a technology initiative in place.
 Integration: Use of technology as a curricular/teaching tool.
 Leadership: decision maker at school sites and at the district office.
 Professional Development: A district-sponsored training program or in-service session.
 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).
 Technology: A device used at a school site used for access to the Internet or personal
computing.
 Technology support: District personnel designated to maintain technology, including
Internet connectivity, at the school sites.
 Vision/Mission: A district’s central goals as created by the board of education or
superintendent.
Organization of the Study
This study is 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 is
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 20
discussed in Chapter Four. The study is concluded in Chapter Five with a discussion of findings,
implications, and recommendations regarding 1:1 technology implementation in today’s 21st
century classrooms.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 21
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 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) call 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
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.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 22
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 in 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 they 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), such as 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 (2011),
the maturing of the Internet changed the way computers were used in society and in schools.
Overall, the first 15 years of this century were 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 from the increase in Internet connections in schools is the profound impact it
had on the growth of curricular content available to teachers that used to be accessible in books
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 23
and video material (that had to be purchased). Furthermore, the Internet and wireless access
gave rise to the use of collaborative digital tools such as blogs and other online 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 computers’ 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 has been the overall lack of quality professional development provided to
teachers (Bichelmeyer & Molenda, 2006; Earle, 2002).
The Digital Divide
Since technology entered schools, public schools in America continued to fail at
providing equal access to technology for all students. A digital divide 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 traditionally had
limited access to technology including computers and software. Prior research established this
problem, including the work of Garland and Wotton (2002) which 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 instructional training are the two largest contributors to the
resurgent problem of the digital divide in American schools (Garland & Wotton, 2002).
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 24
The technological inequalities poor students contend with at school are an obstacle at
home as well. Recent reviews of available literature show there are major gaps in home access
to digital media and technology (Warschauer, Matuchniak, Pinkard, & Gadsden, 2010). The
inequalities in technology usage 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).
School boards and district leaders across the nation face the digital divide within their
districts. Educational leaders face decisions regarding equity and social justice when providing
technology to schools. Schools that are unprepared to use technology effectively in the
classroom are not serving the students who need the access to technology.
21st 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 (Saavedra &
Opfer, 2012; Larson & Miller, 2011; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
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 in the curriculum (Harris et al., 2009). According to
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 25
Hew and Brush (2007), technology implementation or integration in K-12 schools typically
includes the use of computing tablet devices for instruction. This includes the use of computing
tablet devices such as desktop computers, laptops, tablets, software, 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 providing a computing tablet device per student for
educational purposes (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak, & Peterson, 2010).
Specific to 1:1 technology devices, school districts that implemented 1:1 initiatives
reported the goal of their initiative is to prepare students with 21st century skills (Penuel, 2006).
Critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity are 21st century skills that 1:1
device implementation could facilitate. A variety of perspectives influence the dialogue
regarding what 21st century skills are. For example, Wagner (2008) describes 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 of 21st century skills, P21, the Partnership for 21st Century
Learning developed a framework for 21st century student outcomes and support systems
(Partnership for 21st Century Learning, 2016). Their 21st century skills framework includes four
themes: (a) key subjects and 21st century themes, (b) learning and innovation skills, (c)
information, media and technology skills, and (e) life and career skills. The Partnership for 21st
Century Learning breaks the framework into the following subcategories as well:
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 26
1. Key Subjects and 21st Century Themes
a. Mastery of the core subjects (ex. Language Arts, Math, science, 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
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, 2013b). The
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 27
International Technology Education Association (2007) established international standards for
technology literacy that focus on the outcomes of technology in education and the need for
students to be prepared 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 the different levels involved in education with standards for students, teachers,
administrators, coaches, and computer science educators. ISTE standards give guidelines for
personnel to operate within and linked the new Common Core standards to provide educators a
means to engage students in the acquisition of 21st century skills. The third set of standards that
is widely used is the level of teaching innovation (LoTi) framework (Moersch, 2013b). The
standards set in LoTi are 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, 2015b), 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 both with the
Common Core standards as well as the standards produced by various groups indicating 21st
century skills.
Attention to both 21st century skills standards and technology standards is vital to
successful technology implementation. Richardson (2013) warned that putting technology first–
simply adding a layer of expensive tools on top of the traditional curriculum–does nothing to
address the new needs of modern learners. This is where the strategies to successfully
implement technology in secondary classrooms need to be analyzed. According to Weston and
Bain (2010), the goal should move beyond substituting a book with a digital one or paper report
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 28
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) report 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 teacher pedagogy. Technology can be a
useful tool for educators to teach students 21st Century skills. 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. Fullan (2007) also stated that educational change is
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 29
technically simple but socially complex. Fullan’s (2007) 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 to Fullan’s educational
change theory, 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 of Fullan’s theory,
innovativeness involves the capacities of an organization to engage in continuous improvement
where the culture of the institution is examined. The capacity-building focus of Fullan’s change
theory identifies stakeholders as capacity builders regarding how each stakeholder’s experience
in relation to the process of educational change and ideas for what each role could or should do
about educational change (Fullan, 2007). The stakeholders who would be identified in Fullan’s
framework are teachers, principals, and district administrators.
Ensminger (Ensminger, Surry, Porter, & Wright, 2004; Ensminger & Surry, 2008)
defined implementation as the process of introducing an innovation into an organization and
fostering its use. When using a five-phase generic instructional design process, analysis, design,
development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE), their research identified four social
contexts that must be taken into consideration when designing an implementation plan. They
include organizational factors and individual factors as well as instructional environment and
support environment. Ely’s (1990) research created conditions for implementation of
instructional innovations by determining implementation profiles to develop tailored
implementation plans for organizations. Ely’s framework includes eight conditions to consider:
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 30
dissatisfaction with status quo, adequate time, resources, knowledge and skills, rewards and
incentives, participation, commitment, and leadership.
In regards 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 never assessed(Chauncey, 2010). Chauncey’s (2010) research outlined
six characteristics of strategy that an organization must consider relative to attempting
educational change. Good strategies include these characteristics in that the strategy (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.
An important aspect to consider during implementation is how to evaluate the model’s
effectiveness. Hall (2010, 2013) reported the importance of using 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.
This bridge identifies three factors to monitor during implementation: levels of use, innovation
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 31
configurations, and stages of concern. The facilitating factor for all three of these is the
leadership at the site.
Hall’s (2013) framework can be utilized to monitor and evaluate the implementation
model used at individual districts or schools to determine how the district and site-level
leadership positively contributed to the factors identified in the various change theories,
previously mentioned. 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.
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 identified values and behaviors consistent with the desired
culture of full technology immersion. Their meta-analysis also identified strategies to reinforce
the mission of the 1:1 technology device implementation as well as establish a culture which will
sustain 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;
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 32
Fullan, 2007; Hall, 2010, 2013; Hartnell et al., 2011). It is vital for educational leaders to know
of these theories regarding institutional change to plan and create policy that will facilitate high
levels of implementation of any new technologies. 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. Fullan’s (1999, 2007) Theories of Change
Teacher 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. Attitudes of the teachers integrating technology
into their lessons play a major role in a successful implementation. Hew and Brush (2007) stated
Device
Adoption
Implementation
Profile
Evaluation of
Implementation
Implementation
Gap
Implementation Bridge

Fullan’s (1999, 2007) Theories of Change
ADDIE Model
Ensminger (2004,
2008)
Conditions of
Implementation
Ely (1999)
Concerns Based
Adoption Model
Hall (2010,
2013)
Full
Immersion
Competing
Values
Hartnell et al.
(2011)
Knowledge
Gap
Instruction
Gap
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 33
that teacher attitudes and beliefs toward technology can be a major barrier to technology
integration. Negative feelings toward technology or the implementation process create a barrier.
Teachers who view technology as merely a way to keep kids busy do not see the relevance of
technology to the designated curriculum (Hew & Brush, 2007). Case studies of teachers in
laptop programs showed that teachers’ 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).
Climate, Culture, and Professional Development
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 (Hutchison & Reinking, 2010). Hutchison (2012) found that
43% of teachers stated that access to equipment before and after professional development
hindered its use in the classroom and that more time was needed with the tablet devices to
develop effective high-quality lessons. Respondents identified four factors they believed 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) ongoing, follow-up, and small group
support (Hutchison, 2012).
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 34
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 technology in the
classroom to do what had not been possible without it to change teaching to use technology
appropriately (Keppler et al., 2014; Li, 2010). Regardless of teaching philosophy or beliefs
about one’s teaching ability, 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. (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 the collegiality among teachers. Creating professional development time in the school
day to share ideas and have focused meetings, sharing challenges and successes in
implementation strengthen the fabric of teacher buy-in and ownership in the process (Chesbro &
Boxler, 2010). Effective professional development regarding instructional technology
encompasses a system where teachers are involved in designing the training (Gorder, 2008;
Penuel, 2006) and where teachers train each other to apply instructional technology (Penuel,
2006). The importance 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
(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 1:1
technology device in their classrooms. Professional development programs, which incorporated
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 35
21st century skills with laptops, were most beneficial to teachers. Those skills included extended
problems and projects that use real-world resources and student collaboration. In addition,
computer tools to reach solutions or create final projects (Penuel, 2006). 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 the
framework’s effectiveness in conceptualizing what teachers need to achieve meaningful
technology-enabled learning. Brantley-Dias and Ertmer’s (2013) research identified the need for
future clarification of the TPACK model and other conceptual models that attempt to provide
clarity on teacher knowledge for successful technology implementation of. 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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 36
The TPACK framework is based of Shulman’s (1986, 1987) idea of PCK. The new
TPACK framework emphasizes the importance of dynamic relationships among the original
components of Shulman’s PCK framework. Koehler and Mishra expanded the framework by
identifying PCK, TCK, 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 between 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 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, supported 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, Mishra, &
Koehler, 2009; Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Koehler, Mishra, &
Yahya, 2007)
What the TPACK does, according to Brantley-Dias and Ertmer (2013), is start a dialogue
about the connection of policy to practice, and the framework provides a starting point for
districts and school to communicate about implementation plans and policy with new
technology.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 37
Bauter (2013) concluded in their research on policy findings that there was a lack of
ability for leadership to identify policies that drive practice. In fact, the only written policy
found for schools was the technology plan for each 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. Bauter (2013) found that most principals were
solely in charge of implementation at their site and no written plan or policy was drafted. The
problem with this is that the success and sustainability of the program is tied to one person, and,
if that person leaves the school, the likelihood that the program will continue to be successful is
doubtful. Bauter’s subsequent findings demonstrated that, if no plan or policy was in place, then
there was no means to connect policy to practice, communicate policy or plans, and find
research-based theoretical foundations in policy. Their findings were substantiated by one
principal’s quote, “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
indicatives: 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 was to be a part
of the plan or policy. According to Zucker (2009), “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 of the
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 38
philosophical beliefs and values of the educational leaders making plans to implement one-to-
one technology initiatives. In Penuel’s meta-analysis of the literature on these initiatives, a
conclusion pertained to education leaders’ goals and vision:
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 made (Bauter, 2013). Penuel (2006) calls 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 give guidance to programs on the ways they ought to structure
professional development opportunities for teachers and provide technical support.
According to Odden and Picus (2015), state funding formulas should also be taken into
consideration when budgeting or making decisions regarding a new technology initiative. They
recommend funding technology in the state of Wyoming for each student at an amount equal to
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 39
$250.00 based on average daily membership. They broke down the costs per student into the
following categories:
 Computer hardware: $71
 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) adequately budgets for districts
to provide upgrades, maintenance, servers, operating systems and productivity software, network
equipment, and student administrative system 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 one-to-one laptop initiative, it would need to
increase the base funding of $71 for computer hardware per student to $212 and would 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, provided five
lessons for administrators to keep in mind as they implement new technology initiatives: (a) it is
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. As part of any successful plan for
implementation, Overbay et al. (2011) offer two unique recommendations. First, administrators
must provide professional development over the summer for teachers on new technology and on
how to incorporate it into instruction. Second, administrators must remain focused on people, as
opposed to technology, throughout implementation. The sustainability of any technology
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 40
initiative is ultimately dependent on the vision and skill of educators (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 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 one-to-one
initiatives by issuing a laptop in a specific grade level and allowing students to take it with them
as they matriculate into advanced grade levels. In this manner, districts can build a one-to-one
computer program over a series of years (Odden & Picus, 2015).
Needed Resources and Sustainability
When considering a one-to-one initiative, it is vital that districts audit their current
infrastructure for online computing. Because of the necessity for, cloud computing, and web-
based applications, Internet access is a vital component of any one-to-one initiative (Keppler et
al., 2014; Lei & Zhao, 2008; Zheng et al., 2014). The cost-analysis of providing wired ports as
compared to Wi-Fi coverage overwhelmingly suggests that Wi-Fi coverage is the only cost-
effective method to provide access to the Internet (Odden & Picus, 2015). Therefore,
educational leaders should determine the state of their infrastructure before making decisions
about one-to-one hardware and/or software adoptions.
Levin and Schrum (2014) described the need for partnerships among of schools that
successfully implemented technology. They described partnerships as not only 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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 41
membership on planning committees and advisory boards as well as additional human and
technical resources.
An example of this in action was provided Penuel (2006). A variety of laptop programs
have utilized students for technical support to troubleshoot routine problems with machines and
classroom support for technical problems (Penuel, 2006). An example of this was the Maine
laptop initiative, which used iTeams consisting of students available to help with problems
associated with laptops (Silvernail & Harris, 2003; Silvernail & Lane, 2003).
Insufficient technical support can contribute to turning a teacher who had 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 increased use
when all students’ laptops are working because they do not have to create two assignments–one
for students with working laptops and another for students without (Davis, Garas, Hopstock,
Kellum, & Stephenson, 2005; Gaynor & Fraser, 2003; Zucker & McGhee, 2005). The same is
true of wireless Internet connectivity as teachers plan a lesson and provide 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. This is another area that researchers found to be an
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 school sites; educational change is
dependent on what administrators say and believe (Fullan 2007). An important driver in all of
the factors contributing to the success of a one-to-one technology initiative is leadership, as the
communication of goals and a vision for the use of new technology are paramount to the
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 42
initiative’s 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) described the leadership style and approach to implementation
they saw as most beneficial to the program’s success based on their review of the literature.
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 & Schrum, 2014, p.
642), are ideal leadership traits or styles when implementing new technology initiatives.
However, these leadership styles are most applicable when taking a systems approach to explain
the design and plan for technology implementation. The results of Levin and Schrum’s (2014)
cross-case analysis of eight intrinsic case studies of leadership in exemplary schools and districts
that were recognized for effectively using technology for school improvement conclude 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 PD 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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 43
Levin and Schrum (2014) concluded that exemplary schools and districts develop cultural
norms in how they interact with technology, which include expecting everyone to plunge in,
using the method of trial and error, being okay with making mistakes as well as using technology
to open doors for students, providing opportunities students might not have at home, and doing
so in a student-centered way.
Again, the research tells us it is not about the technology, but 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
positive culture within an 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 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) believe these three
factors all play a part in whether teachers integrate technology into their instructional practices.
They believed these three factors have a reciprocal relationship in that they continually influence
each other. Teacher participation will be key, and administrators should facilitate buy-in among
the staff. Overbay et al. (2011) stated that the plan must fit the school, so it is important to take
the pulse of the school.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 44
Conclusion
Professional development as a tool for program improvement and implementation
requires a district to have a coherent vision and commitment to it, including budgeting resources
for research on high-quality programs as well as ongoing (multi-year) training (Porter, Garet,
Desimone, Yoon, & Birman, 2000). A review of the literature revealed the role teacher efficacy
has in the development and implementation of technology in the classroom remains unknown.
This study utilized the many and various frameworks, sets of standards, and literature to explore
the relationship between teacher efficacy with technology and the use of technology in the
classroom to support the development of 21st century skills. The other aspect of this relationship
explored was the effect district and administrative decisions and policy have on teacher efficacy
and its relationship to high-quality implementation.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 45
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter commences with a restatement of the problem, purpose, and research
questions from the first chapter. 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
Twenty-first century technology skills have been a priority in education for the past
decade. Students want the latest technology and to have that technology in their classrooms
daily. According to Hew and Brush (2007), technology implementation or integration in K-12
schools typically includes the use of computing tablet devices for instruction. As stated in
Chapter One, implementation of 1:1 initiatives in school districts are at the forefront of issues in
the media and world of education. Implementation of 1:1 programs can add value to student
learning, and all stakeholders should have a clear vision on all expectations. In addition, teacher
self-efficacy could play a major role in technology implementation. User acceptance,
satisfaction, and perceived usability of innovative technologies are crucial to the diffusion of
those technologies (Holden & Rada, 2011). Richardson (2013) warned that putting technology
first–simply adding a layer of expensive tools on top of the traditional curriculum–does nothing
to address the new needs of modern learners. This is where the strategies to successfully
implement technology in secondary classrooms need to be analyzed. All stakeholders and
decision-makers should prioritize the needs of students and correlate these to successful
implementation.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 46
Purpose, and Research Questions
This study identified teacher self-efficacy as a major factor in the implementation of 1:1
technology initiatives. 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 these initiatives. Four areas of
technology implementation were explored and addressed through collected data. The four areas
were professional development, resources, infrastructure, vision and mission. The following
research questions were identified and investigated as means of illustrating educational leader
traits that would facilitate implementation of 1:1 technology programs and whether teacher self-
efficacy plays a role:
 How does the school’s technology infrastructure (Internet capacity, 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?
Design Summary
This study used a mixed-methods research approach. Both qualitative and quantitative
data were collected and analyzed. The mixed-methods approach was used because of the
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 47
complexities of analyzing data from interviews and surveys to provide a better understanding of
the problem. This study was based on Creswell’s (2008) six steps for conducting a study:
1. Identifying a research problem
2. Reviewing the literature
3. Specifying a purpose for research
4. Collecting data
5. Analyzing and interpreting the data
6. Reporting and evaluating research
This chapter specifically addresses steps four, five, and six. The mixed methodology
includes quantitative data from surveys with teachers and a review of school and district
documents relating to the technology plan and qualitative data from interviews with teachers, site
administrators, and district administrators in a case study of a suburban Southern California
comprehensive high school.
Validation of data was accomplished through triangulation. Triangulation is a mixed-
methods approach that facilitates validation of data through cross verification through literature,
surveys, document review and interviews. Triangulation checks for consistency of findings
among all information gathered from different sources. The logic of triangulation is based on the
premise that no single method adequately solves the problem of rival explanations (Patton,
2002). This mixed-methods approach has been 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).

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 48
Participants and Setting
The participants in this study were teachers, site administrators, and district
administrators from a suburban comprehensive Southern California high school. The high
school selected was engaged in the process of implementing or had recently implemented a 1:1
program. People-centric studies gather data by using 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 nature of qualitative inquiry.
Qualitative methods focus on research that attempts to understand how people interpret
their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and the meaning they attribute to their
experiences (Merriam, 2009). The reason for using qualitative methods is to gather data from
teachers and administrators in their natural settings. Natural settings for teachers are essentially
schools and, precisely, their classrooms. A natural setting for an administrator is his or her
office.
Merriam (2009), stated that, in all forms of qualitative research, some data, or,
occasionally, all data are collected through interviews. Interviews were conducted through a
person-to-person format to make determinations that could not be directly ascertained from the
survey or document review alone. Data about opinions, behavior, or the teachers’ interpretation
of the technology and their self-efficacy regarding its use might be hard to identify through
observation alone.
Before a school was selected, the criteria was first determined (LeCompte, Preissle, &
Tesch, 1993) to reflect a typical high school in Southern California. The school was selected on
seven criteria: (a) a high school in Southern California; (b) 1:1 technology device
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 49
implementation where the school district or school committed to providing enough devices for
every student; (c) a high school in a school district of at least 6,000 students, which is the
average size in the state of California (California Department of Education, 2015); (d) a public,
non-charter school; (e) ethnically diverse student population; (f) an English language learner
(ELL) population of at least 10 %; and (g) having at least 50 % of its students qualify for
free/reduced-price lunch. A school or district policy allowing devices to go home with students
was not a criterion for this study. The purpose of these criteria was to ensure results would be
useful to most high school educators in California. Public schools were chosen because they
accept all students who live within 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, and critical incidences) are
selected because they are information-rich and illuminative, meaning they 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).
A high school located in a suburb in Orange County was chosen for this study was. It
was part of a unified school district with approximately 24,000 students. This study used the
pseudonym, Suburban High School in place of the school’s real name. Enrollment for the 2015-
2016 school year was 2,847 students with 29.6% of them identified as Caucasian, 25.1% as
Latino, 36.1% as Asian, and 2.0% as African American. Eight percent of the students were
ELLs, and more than half of them noted Spanish as their home language. Approximately 25% of
students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch (California Department of Education, 2016).

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 50
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, interview protocols
and frameworks: ISTE standards, LoTi standards (Moersch, 2013a), the TPACK framework
(Harris et al., 2009; Koehler et al., 2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2009) and the International
Technology Education Association’s standards.
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 two school
administrators were chosen because of their role in implementing the plan 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. Some had at least 10 years’ teaching experience
and some had taught less, and all served to represent a cross-section of the faculty (Maxwell,
2013).
In addition to the survey and interviews, school and district documents relating to the
technology implementation plan, including plans for professional development and infrastructure
upgrades and maintenance were reviewed.
Quantitative data were collected through a questionnaire generated through
SurveyMonkey.com. This 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 create questions that would provide data to answer the research
questions. The purpose of interviews was to capture how interviewees viewed the world, to
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 51
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 questions were purposely created to align to
the research questions. The interview guide recommended by Patton (2002) was used to list the
questions or issues to be explored. 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 subject. Furthermore, semi-structured (Merriam, 2009) or
guided interview questions (Patton, 2002) were used 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.
All respondents were asked questions that would answer the research questions.
Interview strategies were consistent with the philosophy of naturalistic inquiry. Naturalistic
inquiry studies real-world situations as they unfold naturally, is non-manipulative and non-
controlling, and allows openness to whatever emerges (Patton, 2002).
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 sharing and being honest when answering questions. According to Patton (2002),
physical rapport is distinguished from the content in that the interviewer must maintain
neutrality. This was especially done at the entry stage of the interview to set a tone of neutrality.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 52
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, the school principal was contacted via e-mail and a phone call to explain
the purpose of the study and to arrange for the teachers to be surveyed and to set up the interview
with the principal. The researcher provided the principal the purpose of the study, and invitation
to the teachers to participate, notice that teachers who participated in the survey would be entered
into a lottery for a $50 gift card, and the link to the survey. E-mail reminders were sent to the
principal for distribution to the teachers to achieve a high response rate. The attempt to have as
many survey respondents was to achieve reliability in the results (Creswell, 2008). Teachers
spent between 10 and 20 minutes completing the survey questions. After each high school
teacher completed the survey, they received a follow-up e-mail thanking them for their
participation.
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 to provide background information and the
interview questions. Teachers were interviewed in their own classrooms during their preparation
period, 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, nor would the name of the school be included, in
the dissertation. All respondents were asked permission to be recorded electronically. This
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 53
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 onto a Microsoft Word document.
Data Analysis
The goal of this study was to understand how leadership affects the implementation of
1:1 technology programs at a Southern California high school and its impact on teacher self-
efficacy regarding technology use. The method used in analyzing the interview and observation
data was the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1968). According to Glaser and
Strauss (1968), the four main stages of the constant comparative method are comparing incidents
applicable to each identified category, integrating categories and their properties, delimiting the
theory and writing theory. This method involved coding all data. The method allows for testing
hypotheses and developing with grounded theory from data to help make practical decisions.
After all data were derived from the survey, 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 information was 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), where 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.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 54
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
Suburban 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, and the
recorder was left out in plain sight. All requests to comment off the record were granted. The
transcribed interviews were stored in a secure place and will be destroyed in 2018.
Summary
This mixed-methods study combined quantitative data from an online survey and a
review of relevant school and district documents as well as qualitative data from semi-structured
or guided interviews. All data were triangulated to provide an understanding of the impact
leadership and 1:1 technology program implementation had on teacher self-efficacy. This
method provided validity to the study. The findings are presented in Chapter Four and
recommendations for further research are included in Chapter Five.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 55
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
This chapter presents findings from an examination of the implementation of a 1:1
technology program and the consideration afforded to teacher self-efficacy in the process.
Further, the researcher examined teacher self-efficacy, professional development, funding for
sustainability, technical infrastructure and a monitoring/evaluation of the technology initiative.
These findings are a direct result of six in-person interviews conducted with the superintendent
and assistant superintendent of secondary curriculum as well as with the principal and three
teachers from the selected high school. In addition to the interviews, a quantitative Likert-scale
survey was administered to the staff at Suburban High School. The three administrators selected
were chosen due to their direct influence on the implementation of the 1:1 program in their
district. The superintendent was the driving force behind the program’s inception in conjunction
with the assistant superintendent who was the driver regarding the curricular linkage and
monitoring/evaluating the program. The principal was chosen because of the direct oversight of
implementation at the school. The three teachers were chosen based on their willingness to be
interviewed. Of the 94 teachers surveyed, the selected three were chosen at random from those
willing to be interviewed. The three were from different departments on campus.
Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze the qualitative and quantitative data
and to report the findings as they relate to each research question. To gain a deeper
understanding of the methods employed to implement the 1:1 technology program at Suburban
High School, interviews were conducted with district and site administrators as well as with
teachers who were using the devices in their instruction. To gain a deeper understanding of the
role teacher self-efficacy played on the part of teachers’ implementation of the devices in their
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 56
instruction, including their feelings on district support of the initiative, a survey was used to
capture quantitative data to bolster the data collected in the interviews.
The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured (Merriam, 2009) or guided fashion
(Patton, 2002). An interview guide was prepared with appropriate questions for consistency in
interviews. The purpose of qualitative interviewing was to capture how interviewees viewed the
world, to learn their terminology and judgments, and to capture the complexities of their
individual perceptions and experiences (Patton, 2002). The protocol for the interviews is
included in the appendices.
Participants
Based on the purpose of the study the district selected was chosen because Suburban
Unified School District is a 1:1 device district and is currently in year three of the
implementation. Further, Suburban High School was selected based on seven criteria: (a) a high
school in Southern California; (b) 1:1 technology program implementation where the district or
school committed to providing enough laptops or iPad computers for every student; (c) a high
school in a district of at least 6,000 students, which is the average size in the state of California
(CDE, 2016); (d) a public, non-charter school; (e) an ethnically diverse student population; (f) an
ELL population of at least 10%; and (g) a student population wherein at least 50% qualifying for
free/reduced-price lunch. A policy allowing the devices to go home with students was not a
criterion for this study. Other considerations were the district and site relationship with respect
to quality professional development, managing the change process, identifying and securing
adequate funding for a multi-year program, ensuring the school’s technical infrastructure, such as
Internet connectivity, and monitoring and evaluation throughout the implementation process.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 57
Qualitative data were collected through interviews. Following the initial phone call to the
district superintendent, I was invited for a meeting to discuss the focus and breadth of the study.
During the initial meeting, a schedule for the interviews was designed and participants were
selected based on their involvement in the 1:1 technology initiative. Two groups were identified.
The first group consisted of three administrators: the superintendent, assistant superintendent and
the principal at Suburban High School. The second group were teachers (Teachers A, B and C)
identified based on their willingness to participate as presented in the survey. After all responses
were collected, teachers were randomly selected and were all from different academic
departments. The interviews were conducted over two days. The first day consisted of back-to-
back interviews arranged by the superintendent’s secretary. They were with the superintendent
who spearheaded headed the 1:1 initiative, the assistant superintended who monitored and
provided professional development to the teachers for the initiative, and the principal who carried
out implementation. The second day of interviews included a site visit to interview the three
teachers: a math teacher, an English teacher, and a teaching coach.
Quantitative data were collected via Survey Monkey. The survey consisted of 19
questions based on a Likert-scale and one open-ended question which asked participants if they
would like to be interviewed following the survey. Of the 94 teachers, 47 responded, giving a
50% response rate. Figures 3 and 4 present the respondents’ experience.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 58

Figure 3. Years Teaching

Figure 4. Years at this School
Based on these figures, the most staff members were veterans and had been at the school
for more than 10 years.
4.3%
27.7%
68.1%
1-3 years 4-10 years 11+ years
Number of years I have been a teacher
1-3 years 4-10 years 11+ years
23.4%
38.3% 38.3%
0-3 years 4-10 years 11+ years
Number of years I have taught at this school
0-3 years 4-10 years 11+ years
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 59

Figure 5. Subjects Taught
The survey results also presented the diverse subjects taught at Suburban High School
(Figure 5). This figure shows what would typically be taught in a California high school based
on district graduation requirements.
Coding of Data
Once collected, data from Survey Monkey and interviews were reviewed and placed into
categories based on relevant research question in an open coding process (Corbin & Strauss,
2008). After all codes were defined and identified, open codes were grouped into axial codes or
similar ideas/themes. Finally, data were grouped into selective codes where main themes were
identified. During each step of the analysis, the research questions were at the nexus of the
grouping of data and were the focal point.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and gain an understanding of how district
leaders planned for and implemented a 1:1 computer laptop or tablet device program. The study
21.3%
12.8% 12.8%
21.3%
4.3%
2.1%
8.5%
14.9%
2.1%
Subject you teach
English Math
Science Social Science
Physical Education Arts (visual or performing)
Special Education other elective
Teacher on special assignment
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 60
focused on how educational leaders took quality professional development into consideration,
managed the change process, identified and secured adequate funding for a multi-year program,
ensured the school’s technical infrastructure, such as Internet connectivity, instituted a
monitoring and evaluation process and considered self-efficacy regarding computer use. This
study was also concerned with how the aforementioned elements ultimately affected teacher self-
efficacy.
Guiding Questions
The following four research questions served to guide the study:
1. How does the school’s technology infrastructure (Internet capacity, device upkeep/repair,
etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy regarding technology implementation?
2. To what degree did administrators, in designing a technology plan, consider teacher self-
efficacy?
3. How does the school’s instructional professional development influence teacher self-
efficacy regarding technology implementation?
4. How did the school district develop an instructional technology plan that includes a budget
and evaluation of the 1:1 initiative?
Findings for Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “How does the school’s technology infrastructure
(Internet capacity, device upkeep/repair, etc.) influence teacher self-efficacy regarding
technology implementation?”
Teacher self-efficacy and the forces that influence it play a major role in successful
implementation. Teacher attitudes and beliefs toward technology can be a major barrier to
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 61
technology integration (Hew & Brush, 2007). Planning and communication of the technology
initiative started at the top in Suburban Unified School District. According to the superintendent,
We structure our general obligations 135 million dollars in authorization from the
community so that we will have sold off this set of bonds that bought that set of iPads and
Toshiba laptops, and, then, in four more years, we issue another 20 million dollars of
bonds to order the next step of whatever it is. We are not tied to always having the same
device. Then, in four years, we will have paid that one off and then we issue another 20
million dollars of bonds. What we really did is create a 30-year revenue string. I think
that that’s one of…That’s part of our secret source. Is that we have a revenue string that
is replenishable for 30 years.
Clearly, the board, the community and the district, through the passage of the bond measure, had
sustainability in mind with the technology initiative. Communication of this also came from the
superintendent down through the structure of the professional development and technical
support. The assistant superintendent of administrative services, who oversees technology and
the implementation of the 1:1 initiative stated the following regarding the connectivity and
infrastructure of the Wi-Fi in the district:
Yeah, our goal is to be ready by adding those access points in every classroom, by adding
a second line of Internet capability. Wasn’t enough the first year. We found that out
quickly. We’re hitting 99% almost 24 hours a day. It was pretty insane. We added a 10-
gig line that went out the 2nd year. Thankfully, the county was upgrading because we
run through them. We added that. Our next step is we’re going to dark fiber. Are you
familiar with dark fiber? We’ll be, I believe, the first district in the county to move that
direction. That allows for far greater capacity and a better rate. The other piece that’s
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 62
really important, I think, is that homework app. For students who don’t have the Internet
at home, how are we servicing them? One of the things that’s been really important is we
received a grant that is part of Obama’s ConnectED program. We were able to buy, very
inexpensively, hotspots for our neediest families so that they could do homework at home
on the Internet as well. That was pretty important to us.
The consideration of connectivity is a large part of the district supporting teachers in the
classroom. Looking forward to sustainability in the future, the district purchased “dark fiber,” a
fiber optic line to be owned and used exclusively by the district for dedicated Internet service.
These pieces from the district serve to address the infrastructure needs necessary to maintain
services teachers can rely on.
At the site level, the principal responded that, through the implementation process and as
the rollout took place, there was a great deal of consideration of teacher comfort with the
selection of the devices to be used. Further, teacher consultation was a large part of the process
of professional development, software purchases and of ensure support was available from
technology coaches. Her interview revealed the following about teacher self-efficacy with
devices and the planning process:
They gave them the laptops over the summer, just to be familiar with them, to play with
them. Then, we adopted a haiku as a site for our teachers to use so they could play with
that over the summer. They could go to different classes over the summer, and, then, in
the fall, we did staff development and development throughout the year. At the same
time, they hired digital learning coaches as an instructional coach, but having specifically
to do with the use of the laptop in the classroom and software implementation. They,
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 63
then, would work with different schools on that implementation. All this is taking place
before the kids even have the laptops in their hands.
Teacher C added the following during their interview regarding teacher input in the
process:
It’s interesting. If you think about it, the district set up a measure for the one-to-one, and
it passed. After it passed, I felt like it was going to happen no matter what. Was there
input from us? Yeah, definitely. I was part of the team that helped pick which laptops to
get.
From the teachers’ perspective, the infrastructure was a point of needed improvement. The
technology is in its third year of implementation and, as reported a by teacher, connectivity at the
onset was weak and not reliable:
Most times in the past year, it’s been very good. When we first rolled out, it was
horrible, but that was part of the learning curve. Now, I think we’re doing well. They
keep increasing the bandwidth, and there’s really no reason for the kids to have, or us as
teachers, to have that as an excuse.
These data were also reported on the staff survey which coincided with interview responses from
all three teachers. As shown in Figure 6, 91.6% of respondents reported the Internet connection
in the classroom was fast and reliable and could handle the entire class without connectivity
issues.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 64

Figure 6. Classroom Internet Connection
At the site level, having a tech support person available was also part of the strategy to
mitigate end-user issues. As shown in Figure 7, 95.7% of teachers positively responded that the
school was prompt in resolving technology issues such as a broken device, software problem or
connectivity issue. This type of response to issues, as well as having a well-bolstered technology
infrastructure and repair program, contributes to the vast majority of users feeling that the speed
with which problems are resolved contributes to teacher confidence (Figure 8).
27.7%
42.6%
21.3%
6.4%
2.1%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 65

Figure 7. Response to Technology Problems

Figure 8. Repair Speed
25.5%
48.9%
21.3%
2.1% 2.1%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
25.5%
48.9%
19.1%
6.4%
0.0%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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.
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 66
Finally, in consideration of teacher comfortability with device reliability (student and
teacher), Figure 9 shows that 89.4% of teachers understand the process in seeking help when
technology malfunctions.

Figure 9. Understand Tech Support Process
Based on the responses to the question in Figure 9, teachers showed confidence in the
school to maintain teacher and student devices. The principal also added,
During the school year, if a student is having a problem, then we have our own IT, our own
technician on site, and the student would go and take their device. “Hey, I’m having
problems.” We also trained a group of students, Tech Team, to help as a first, sort of like a
genius bar, just a first go-around. We also get kids who come to move in to our school
district who don’t even know how to use e-mail sometimes. They work with them as peers to
help them. We have all of that in place so that, if their device needs to be repaired, they get a
loaner, just like your car. They get a loaner. It’s sent out, then returned, and they get it back.
44.7% 44.7%
8.5%
2.1%
0.0%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 67
Based on the teacher and administration responses, major considerations were taken in
sustainability, budget, infrastructure and professional development since the inception of the 1:1
imitative and to the present. Teachers received devices to prior to the rollout, and the most
important piece of the initiative was revealed by the superintendent in the form of the bond
measure that provided funding for a 1:1 program for 30 years. The tenets of Hall’s (2013)
framework for change, as well as the elimination of distractions during the implementation
process, such as long term funding and device and infrastructure reliability, were clearly
observed and added to the positive teacher response and comfort with the initiative (Chauncey,
2010).
Findings for Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “To what degree did administrators, in designing a
technology plan, consider teacher self-efficacy?”
The response to the question of whether administrators took teacher self-efficacy into
account was generally affirmative among administrators and staff. At the district level, the
initiative was initiated by a board member and the superintendent. From that idea and the goals
of the district to prepare students for the 21st century, a bond measure was put on the ballot. The
superintendent explained that, once the ballot measure passed, the real work began:
November 12th was the election. Then, as soon as we won, we kind of looked at each
other and went, “Oh, no.” There are a lot of companies that want to contract with school
districts to help you implement the one-to-one. We chose not to use any of them because,
in my opinion, we wouldn’t have developed our own capacity. We went everywhere
where we had heard people were doing the things with technology. We went to public
schools, private schools, Southern California, South Carolina, Chicago. We took teams
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 68
just everywhere. We read a lot. We had book studies. Tony Wagner’s Developing
Innovators, a lot of other things. First of all, we collected as much information as we
could. We involved teachers in all those pilots. We had open houses for technology in
our three high school gyms on successive days where we invited the kids, parents,
teachers, community just to come and see what’s out there now and, then, got feedback
and the input. When you are in a body and put in the classroom 20,000 devices, it
involves the entire district. It’s not just the IT department. It’s the purchasing
department. It’s the warehousing. It’s the library media techs because we had outside
target and then account for the checkout. We had these planning committee meetings
that literally every department from the school district was involved in. They would have
like 8 or 10 people head services personnel, purchasing, accounting, and all of that. IT
facilities because we didn’t just buy the devices, but we had to upgrade our wireless
network throughout all the campuses so that, now, every campus is fully networked
wirelessly. We put new hardware in every single classroom. Every teacher got a new
teaching session, document camera, interactive display, Apple TV, voice amplification.
We just hit everybody with all of that. That became the standard. The planning for all of
that was pretty significant. Most of the work on the classroom upgrades happened within
8 months of passing them out. We passed in November, and, then, by schools starting in
September, classrooms were ready to go. People worked hard to really make a splash so
that they go, “Wow! We did that and now we have this.” Make that connection.
With the passage of the bond measure and all the infrastructure and technology upgrades in the
classrooms, the students’ devices still needed to be rolled out but in a process that included
teacher buy-in. The model for the issuance of the device to students included professional
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 69
development for the volunteer teachers. This model was called 21st century learning
communities (21st CLC). Once selected, the teacher was considered a fellow and received
additional coaching on using the devices in their classes. The assistant superintendent
interviewed stated,
The model for the rollout was called 21st CLC. It’s like a fellow’s program…our fellow
model is based on the Cotsen Foundation model, which is bringing mentor teachers in
from the classroom to, then, deeply coach through the full coaching cycle teachers every
week. Part of the key of this model, I think, is that teachers apply to be coached. For
those teachers who really weren’t ready first year to do all this, we didn’t have space. I
mean, we had way more applications to be coached than we could fill. It gave them time,
I think, to see how are those early adopters…Is it working? How’s it going? That first
year was like, hey, just try it. Just do your best. Let’s do it once a day. You know? It
was with of course the support of the principals, because if the principals into it the
teachers tend to be into it. We used that Cotsen Foundation model, and it has been
incredibly successful. I mean, I have loads of e-mails where teachers have said, “This is
by far the best training we’ve ever done,” right? Because it’s ongoing, it’s personal. It is
supportive in the classroom. Hey, I want to try how to do a particular lesson today.
Great. Let’s try it. Let’s plan it out. Okay, have you thought of this? Have you done
this? My coaches are very well trained, so they know how to guide the fellows through
the thought process without giving the answers and really developing them into strong
leaders at their campus. I think that has been huge.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 70
At the site level, the principal reiterated the implementation of digital learning coaches as well as
developing the bell schedule to build technological capacity in teachers by making sure time was
allocated. Further, she noted,
We introduced the digital learning coaches. We created a program called Technology
Fellows for people who really wanted to go more in-depth. Then, we had, at our school, we
had our district-wide staff development, but our school, because we have some teachers
who are way ahead of everybody else, we did our own in-house staff development. We
have set aside time in all of our staff meetings. We do late-starts, and we’re a real faithful
professional learning community. The real thing, and, in that, we have the teachers work
together, even our history teachers, the history department. They do best practices, and they
use their technology. We have done a lot of our own in-house training, teach to teacher.
Then, when we had our own staff development days. We created workshops at different
levels for teachers in technology. It worked.
The principal also noted that, in relation to change management,
Then, we worked with the teachers who were more reticent and sent them to other kinds of
conferences, worked with them in their own staff development, and never gave them a
choice. We would just sign them up to go because they needed to be part of it. I’m very
fortunate that all of our teachers recognized that this was not a gimmick, and I really believe
it was the foundation that was set, district-wide. Why we were doing this because we
wanted our kids to have the best education possible and our teachers understand that it
wasn’t a toy.
From an administrative standpoint, there was a concerted effort to push the initiative while
considering teacher input and efficacy with respect to technology use. There seemed to be a
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 71
push to prepare the students with 21st century skills and the 1:1 initiative was a large piece of
that work. To some degree, the change was going to happen whether teachers wanted it or not,
based on the bond measure passage. The district did involve teachers in that effort, according to
the superintendent, which paved the way for the very open and collaborative process of
integrating the entire district in moving to a 1:1 program.
In the case of teachers, reflection on the degree to which administrators considered
teacher self-efficacy in the district technology plan reflected the necessity to push technology-
based on passage of the bond measure. Teacher C summed it up in the following:
It’s interesting. If you think about it, the district set up a bond measure for the one-to-
one, and it passed. After it passed, I felt like it was going to happen no matter what. Was
there input from us? Yeah, definitely. I was part of the team that helped pick which
laptops to get.
As shown in Figure 10, only 50% of the staff agreed or strongly agreed that they were consulted
in the development of the 1:1 program.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 72

Figure 10. Teachers Consulted Prior to Implementation
Further, Teacher B she explained,
I know that we’ve had a few teachers throughout the district that initially were asked to
provide comment or provide, I don’t know if it’s comment, or maybe even advice on
what they wanted, sort of an advisory type committee. Beyond that, though, I feel as
though, at least on our campus, through the digital fellowship program, everybody who’s
been a fellow or is a fellow, or will be a fellow, has had the opportunity and has been
asked to present to fellow staff members, and work with fellow staff members in helping
them understand how to use not just the devices, but the applications and programs that
we’ve all used.
Based on Teacher B’s statements and the statements of the other teachers interviewed, there was
a pattern of improved teacher involvement and consideration after the initial infrastructure and
classroom technology was installed. The point at which teachers really became involved in the
process was at the time when the 21st CLC fellows program was initiated. Teacher B said,
15.2%
34.8%
32.6%
8.7% 8.7%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 73
21st CLC is very collaborative. I want to say at least here on this campus, and to some extent,
throughout the district that I’m aware of, it’s collaborative, and it’s one of those things that the
only way it’s going to work is through collaboration.
Another factor that may have helped the program get off the ground and garner favor
with teachers was their belief that a 1:1 device program could improve their teaching. As shown
in Figure 11, 74.5% of teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that a 1:1 initiative would
improve their teaching and students’ learning.

Figure 11. Beliefs Regarding Contribution
This observation, coupled with the data in Figure 12, show improved teacher perception
of the impact of a 1:1 program as a tool to improve teaching and student learning. According to
Figure 12, 80.4% of teachers agree or strongly agree that a 1:1 device program can contribute to
their teaching and students’ learning.
29.8%
44.7%
23.4%
2.1%
0.0%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 74

Figure 12. Current Beliefs
During the interview with the superintendent a some of the questions focused on district
goals and alignment with the 1:1 initiative. According to the superintendent, “Our three goals
that we worked on as a district: rigorous standards, engaging strategies for kids, all supported by
technology. It’s about the learning.” These goals were echoed in all administrative interviews
and teacher interviews. Further, the superintendent stated that the aim of all district efforts was
to increase student achievement and impart 21st century skills. In keeping with this vision,
improving technology was the next step in that direction. In surveying the teaching staff at
Suburban High School, 68.9% agreed or strongly agreed that the 1:1 device program would
improve their ability to teach 21st century skills, as shown in Figure 13.
39.1%
41.3%
15.2%
2.2% 2.2%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 75

Figure 13. Improved Ability
Techer perception of the 1:1 initiative and cohesion with the district goals of providing
students with rigorous standards and engaging strategies for students, all supported by
technology, show a parallel based on the data observed. Further, the superintendent stated that
the goals are communicated constantly:
Every time I make a presentation to any group, I use those data points that I talked to you
about: AP, IB, SBA scores, SAT enrollment in four-year college directly from high
school. Our suspension, expulsion rates down. All of that stuff. I do it to our teachers at
our welcome back meeting that we have in August. I do it to the community through the
state of the school’s breakfast. I have presentations that I can adapt to be a little shorter, a
little longer depending on just whoever people are interested in having to talk. I was at
the local historical society a couple weeks ago giving a talk at the public library. Then,
we also use that data in writings that we do. We have a director of communications,
which is really important. It helps get our positive stories out. We publish articles and
26.7%
42.2%
22.2%
4.4% 4.4%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
The 1:1 laptop or tablet device program has improved my ability to teach
students 21st century skills (innovation, collaboration, assessment and
analysis of information, and communication).
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 76
news, the Orange County Register, the School Roll Call, which is a privately published
school newspaper that comes out once a month. I have a superintendent’s newsletter and
we put it in there. We repeat it because the thing about communication is, if you don’t
feel like you’ve over-communicated, you are still woefully under-communicated. If you
tell a story once, it will have almost no impact. When I was a young guy, I worked at
UPS…and the guy who was training me…said it takes a person to see, hear or read
information seven times before they own it. He said, if you get frustrated that you told
somebody two or three times, just realize you are halfway there. You have to keep
repeating it. I really think that’s true. We try not to repeat it in the exact same way, to
the exact same people, but we write it, we put it in this story, we put it in that story, we
put it up in presentation slides, we use it in a variety of ways.
The communication to the teaching staff of the goals of the district and the importance of
teaching 21st century skills is reflected in the data in Figure 14. Figure 14 shows that 83% of
teachers surveyed agree or strongly agree that they understand the district goals regarding the 1:1
device program.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 77

Figure 14. Understand Goals
Clearly, teachers know and understand the district’s position on teaching expectations
and expectations of the 1:1 device initiative. The communication of this information form the
inception of the program along with teacher input from the onset of the district technology bond
to the current state of the 21st CLC fellows program to roll out classroom sets of student devices
all speak to the districts interest in including teachers in the process. Fullen (2007) stated that the
extent to which teachers interact with one another, collaborating and providing technical
assistance collegially, is a strong indicator of implementation success. All data collected showed
that most teachers felt the 21st CLC fellows program and the current state of professional
development was collaborative and helpful to their practice. Teacher B stated,
It is very collaborative. I want to say at least here on this campus and, to some extent,
throughout the district that I’m aware of, it’s collaborative, and it’s one of those things that
the only way it’s going to work is through collaboration. There’s a lot of involvement.
Some teachers are more involved than others.
29.8%
53.2%
12.8%
2.1% 2.1%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 78
Findings for Research Question 3
The third research question asked, “How does the school’s instructional professional
development influence teacher self-efficacy regarding technology implementation?”
Instructional professional development in terms of 1:1 device implementation is a
hallmark of the school district. The superintendent, upon inception, wanted to have a singular
vision and set of goals for the district that encompassed the 1:1 technology initiative. The
superintendent included all departments at the district office with special regard to the
curriculum and instruction and technology divisions. The superintended stated,
I tell you one of the things that we did when I first came here. I was familiar with the rift
that usually exists between IT and educational tech. In IT, we want to lock everything
down. Educational tech want to open everything up. There is a position here they kind of
restructured a little bit and made the systems of admin services oversee both IT and
educational tech so that they had to meet every week together. That was like magic.
Now, one person is making the same decision for both IT and educational tech. That
helped a lot. Then, the educational tech we also created a coordinator of educational tech
position, and that person works directly with the digital coaches. They meet regularly.
They get coached on coaching. They have a lot of training. Then we put in place the
program on that.
In keeping with the superintendent’s vision of a singular district initiative, the 21st CLC fellows
program was created. According to the superintendent, one assistant superintendent oversaw the
1:1 device initiative as well as the instructional and monitoring components. The assistant
superintendent shared,
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 79
We used that Cotsen Foundation model, and it has been incredibly successful…I mean, I
have loads of e-mails where teachers have said, “This is by far the best training we’ve
ever done,” right? Because it’s ongoing, it’s personal. It is supportive in the classroom.
Hey, I want to try how to do a particular lesson today. Great. Let’s try it. Let’s plan it
out. Okay, have you thought of this? Have you done this? My coaches are very well
trained, so they know how to guide the fellows through the thought process without
giving the answers and really developing them into strong leaders at their campus. I
think that has been huge.
Further, the sentiment shared by the superintendent and classroom teachers was that the district
sought to build capacity in their staff to create a collaborative environment. Allowing teachers
input into the training design during a technology initiative as well as allowing peers to coach
were attributes of a successful program (Gorder, 2008; Penuel, 2006). Evidence of teacher input
and collaborative learning are all pieces of the 21st CLC. The assistant superintendent shared,
Most of our coaches are from our classrooms, so they’re definitely part of that. Then,
because coaching was already well established in our school district, when we explained
it would be similar to that, we almost didn’t have to say anything more. We had such a
great program already running with the instructional side with peer coaches that, when
we said, “Hey, it’s going to be just like that. If you guys want to sign up, it will be more
of a focus on technology. It’ll be mostly Tustin teachers. Do you want to participate?”
Kind of didn’t have to say much more. That was lucky.
Adding to leadership capacity at the sites, the principals were also included in the training and in
a pseudo-fellow program that mirrored the teachers’ program. The assistant superintendent went
on to say,
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 80
This year coming up…Every year, I revamp how we coach principals because I think
that’s pretty important. We want our principals to feel like they can lead their teachers
with technology. The first year, we did these full, beautiful hour-long trainings. We’d
give them the PowerPoints. The principals would take it back and use it themselves, so it
would be easy. That worked pretty well, but I didn’t see the principals, like, taking
initiative on their own after that. I think we kind of were too spoon-feeding them. Then,
this year, we did a different model where we trained them 30 minutes in principals’
meetings. They could take it back. Just a couple things with their staff. We’d give them
time to practice, we’d provide support. That worked okay, too, but I didn’t feel like we
were getting, like, deep enough. This year we’re going to have principals apply to be
coached by myself, my IT director, and my ed tech coordinator. We will all have fellows
ourselves, and we’ll all, hopefully, be able to take our schools to the next level. I
constantly am revamping that. I want to be respectful of principals’ time, yet I want them
to be able to be leaders at their schools.
The principal shared that, at the site, making professional development time available during the
school day during which the coaches and teaching peers conducted the professional development
allowed teachers to buy in and work together organically and build capacity in each other.
Creating this time during the professional day to have focused meetings to share challenges and
successes in the implementation process strengthens the fabric of teacher buy-in and ownership
(Chesbro & Boxler, 2010).
Teachers surveyed provided insight on teacher self-efficacy and perception about their
ability to fully integrate a device in their classrooms. Figure 15 shows that only 40.4% of
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 81
teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that they had confidence in their ability to integrate
a device in their classroom prior to the district 1:1 initiative.

Figure 15. Prior Confidence
Following the inception of the 1:1 device initiative, teachers had a different level of
comfort integrating the devices into their curriculum. Figure 16 shows that 83% of teachers
surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that focused technology professional development improved
their confidence in integrating the 1:1 device program into their classrooms. This was
approximately a 100% increase in the level of teacher confidence.
19.1%
21.3%
31.9%
17.0%
10.6%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
“Before the 1:1 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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 82

Figure 16. Increased Confidence in Integration
Instructional strategies and expectations were discussed with the assistant superintendent
to reveal that 1:1 program band width was one of the indicators often examined. The bandwidth,
in respect to the volume of traffic at any moment, was inspected for two reasons. The first was
to be sure the district had adequate bandwidth for the scope of the work they were doing with the
devices, and the second was to see how much the teachers used the Internet in their instruction.
Figure 17 shows teachers’ perceptions of their ability to use the Internet as a tool since the
inception of the program. This reflects the professional development and its relationship to
increasing teacher self-efficacy in technology integration. It is important to note that, from the
assistant superintendent down to the site, expectations were clearly articulated and a part of the
ongoing professional development provided to staff and through the 21st CLC fellows program.
46.8%
36.2%
10.6%
2.1%
4.3%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 83

Figure 17. Increased Confidence in Internet Use
The data revealed that 69.5% of teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that the
professional development increased their confidence to use the Internet as a learning tool. This
data indicated that most teachers felt professional development increased their self-efficacy.
Teacher B shared that being in the third year of implementation meant going back was not an
option. Techer B commented,
Yeah. I think, overall, at least I’m looking at our campus. I think the one-to-one program
is now a part of our culture on this campus. It’s definitely something that, if I had to stop
using it in my classroom, I would have a major disruption in my delivery of instruction. I
would have a major disruption in the ability to manage my classroom, manage the
assessments and all of those things. That tells me that it’s become just as much a tool as
the paper and pencil used to be, and the notebook is still, in any classroom.
21.7%
47.8%
26.1%
2.2% 2.2%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly agree
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 agree
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 84
As shown in Figure 18, 87% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that, if given more
professional development in the future, their confidence to fully integrate the 1:1 program would
improve.

Figure 18. Additional Professional Development
Based on observations, professional development provided by the district and sites
increased teachers’ self-efficacy using and integrating 1:1 technology. To put it into perspective,
the principal described teacher use of technology pre-1:1 initiative as,
We did, you know, your basic 101, how to use this, because we had teachers who just
were using their desktops to take attendance and doing some research, but that was it.
There were everything from, basically, how to use their laptops for more, how to develop
their own websites through haiku, how to use that. We started with just the basics. Of
course, there were people who were way ahead, and they were already researching
different apps and how they could use them in their classroom.
50.0%
37.0%
4.3% 4.3% 4.3%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 85
Since the creation of professional development and the fellows program, the district committed
to supporting teachers in their classrooms: meeting them where they were with site-based
professional development as well as a deeper version (21st CLC) for those who wanted to dig in
for advanced training. Capacity-building was as much personal as professional. As shown in
Figure 18, 68.1% of teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that professional development
increased their ability to operate a laptop.

Figure 19. Increased Ability
In consideration of teacher self-efficacy, the district showed inclusiveness in considering
teacher opinion after the bond measure passed, funding the 1:1 initiative. The rollout, according
to the assistant superintendent, took place rather rapidly but with input from teachers as far as
device choice and what professional development to begin with:
Then, we went through and did a vote, which device do we want? They ended up
choosing the iPad for K-8, and, then, once I got here, we had to select the high school
device. We did very much the same thing. We had about 40 assets that we were looking
27.7%
40.4%
17.0%
6.4%
8.5%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
Since the inception of the school’s 1:1 laptop or tablet device program, the
technology professional development has increased/improved my ability to
operate the laptop or tablet device (for example, how to use Windows 10).
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 86
for to determine which device would be a fit for our school district. If they met those
criteria, one of the most important being of course battery life, then we were able to test
those in the classrooms. Then, we had kids and teachers again vote for what they wanted.
Taking the time to consider teacher input was a hallmark of the district’s decisions. Teacher
buy-in was a major consideration and cornerstone of the district’s work. These decisions and
actions by district employees were framed in the superintendent’s goals as reiterated by Teacher
A:
The district’s motto and vision, and it encompasses three things, which is rigorous
standards, engaging instructional strategies supported by technology. Those are the three
parts, tiers, to the district connect program. I really think that that’s what the district’s
vision is with one-to-one is to enhance and improve teaching and learning with those
three things in mind that technology is something that is going to improve and help the
teachers to be able to do the rigorous standards and engaging instructional strategies
because technology will support that.
The superintendent also stated,
Our goal is not just for replacement or substitution, but we want kids to do real research.
We want them to explore things that are on the Internet, communicate with experts in the
field, solve real-world problems. That’s happening… There was a lot of piloting that
went on with key instructional technology leaders, and we piloted tablets, laptops and a
variety of both, Android and Apple. Picked Apple iPads for the K-8, and in K-2 they
used mini Pads, and that thinking is mini fingers for mini Pads. We also know that they
don’t take back, but, starting in grade three, they do, so 3 to 8 are regular size iPads. One
iPad for every three kids K to 4, and, then, in grades 5 to 8, the kids have an iPad to
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 87
check out to take home. Then, the next year, we started distributing high school. This is
now the fall of ’14. High school Toshiba laptops, and we landed on Toshibas again after
extensive piloting, particularly having teachers try and use the devices for instructional
purposes and then rate them according to what performed. Battery life was one of the
biggest deals. Most devices at that time, it was difficult to get more than three or four
hours out of the battery. These Toshibas did really well.
The 1:1 device initiative, at the onset, was a collaborative effort including all personnel in the
district and evolved to meet teachers’ needs.
Findings for 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?”
The program’s budget was built into the technology bond measure that made the
initiative possible. According to the superintendent,
The problem with technology here was, if you’re a Title I school, you could get it. If you
were up the hill, where parents could raise a lot of money, you could get it. Then,
everybody else struggled to pay for it. It also was very dependent upon the principal’s
interest, the community’s interest, and, in a unified school district, the thinking was, if
it’s important, it’s important for every kid. So, we wanted to try and create a funding
stream that would allow us to have all the technology we thought we needed. So, we
passed that bond in 2012, November, and then by the fall of ’13, we were putting devices
in schools.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 88
This sentiment of access for all extended to students’ homes as well. The bond funds allow
connectivity for all district students. The superintendent reiterated the scope of the project and
how it helped close the digital divide:
It’s really equalized the playing field. It doesn’t matter ZIP code, home language, parent
income. Every kid has access. We are still working on making sure they have access at
home, and we have a connected device. If you read about that. But we’ve bought a
bunch of hotspots for next year that we are going to be able to give out to Title I kids to
take home, and, if there is a hotspot in the house, we are sure that in our Title I home that
will serve more than one kid. A lot of the Title I families have multiple children in
schools. We are not perfect on that yet, but we have a plan, and we are getting better.
As previously mentioned, the superintendent shared that the bond measure will carry the 1:1
initiative through for the next 30 years. The superintendent explained,
Then, they will usually throw in some money for technology. Ours was more of a
technology bond, and we threw in some money for facilities. There are some longer
serving bonds or lasting bonds to do…All the infrastructure work and network we are
doing so many to update some science labs at the middle schools. Those bonds can last
longer because the product lasts longer. But, for technology, one of the laws about
general obligation bonds is you can’t use a bond to fund something more than 20% of the
length of the asset, of the life of the asset. If you just argue that a laptop can last four
years, which is a long time, then you could fund that laptop with a five-year bond because
you didn’t fund it for one year more than the life of the asset.
The budget for the 21st CLC and coaching aspect was less transparent. The assistant
superintendent shared, “We’re still moving towards our goal of coaching every person we can
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 89
before the coaching money runs out, but also really trying to establish the leadership of the site.”
A theme to emerge from interviews was that of building capacity and a culture that will
organically continue professional development through regular meetings at the schools. The
assistant superintendent stated,
Next year, we’re going to be really working to build our organic leadership at the sites by
allowing…This year, we have about 10 fellows per coach, and they’re all new. They’ve
never been coached before. Next year, we’re revamping our model to include a site lead.
We’ve redone some of our job descriptions with, like, our tech task force. We’re going
to allow two returning fellows to be the leaders on the campus and then seven brand new.
The district made a hard push to get every teacher involved and to create a culture of technology
use. The training and support were clear, and the expectations grew out of the superintendent’s
goal of providing technology-supported rigorous standards and engaging instructional strategies.
Understanding the expectations of the 1:1 device program, including monitoring, must be
framed in terms of the instruction and the funding source, since the bond is what funds the
initiative. Based on this two-pronged approach, the following information came from interviews
with administrators. The superintendent explained:
The PD [professional development] is tied to it as well as school plans, principal
evaluation plans, our annual goals that the evaluations are built on, the principles of
having teachers build into their PD goals, how they are integrating technology. There is a
pretty good alignment so that, if you are, let’s say, a principal here, you would have a
goal about how you are pushing the envelope. How you are pushing technology. Now,
that’s how we monitor it, if your supervisor meets with you at the beginning of the year
or mid-year, end of year, takes walks on your campus with you in observing classrooms
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 90
and doing that, and, so, together, you are able to assess how we are doing on the
implementation side.
Instructionally, the assistant superintendent, with both the instructional and technology
responsibilities shared,
I have a full evaluation matrix by which I track things that are related to our goals.
Rigorous standards. We track test scores, we check our benchmarks, called checkpoints,
we track student records. We track anything that has to do with our instructional
program. We track our student engagement by looking at attendance and tardies and
graduation rates. Then, we look at how technology’s being used by the amount of
bandwidth we’re using every day, by the amount of repairs that we’re bringing in. Do we
have enough loaners for our students to use them in the classroom if they’re broken?
The principal explained:
Part of it is we have an oversight committee for the bond, for the Measure S bond. They
meet on a regular basis and they really do work. For example, last week, they were
visiting our schools to see the implementation. They were reporting back. They were
there to see for themselves how the implementation is progressing. They went and
visited classrooms. We didn’t tell the teachers they were coming, just to see as we are,
what changes there have been in the classroom. That’s one of the monitorings. The other
is that we go to the classrooms just on our own evaluation as a site administrators, one of
our goals is we do just walk-throughs and we put that in there. We did a specific walk-
through for the use of technology, like real use, not just open.
Communication of the goals of the district, making sure to include all stakeholders, was
one of the superintendent’s main aims. The importance of that aim was demonstrated when he
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 91
stated that he reiterated those goals in different forums. At the teacher level, the goals repeated
by district administrators were the same. Teacher A stated,
It is a part of the culture. It’s something that’s hard to collect data on, too. I feel like
because, again, who defines what success of the one-to-one program is? I guess, whatever
the superintendent says, this is what I’m looking for, so, is success that more teachers are
feeling confident in using the devices and they’re using them effectively? I know that the
admin here have a Google form that they use that they’ve shared with me that kind of
where one of the things is like what technology did you see and engagement of students
and that sort of thing. The district administration I feel like they’re very present on
campus. They’ll do walk-throughs multiple times a year, so the superintendent, and
assistant superintendent, they’ll all come and see what’s going on in the classrooms
because they want to see, number one, if they’re being used and how they’re being used.
Teacher B stated survey data were also a form of monitoring they have participated in:
Well, other than surveys, I think that the district has, and I don’t remember how many,
but I know that they have put out several surveys to the staff, parents, and I’m not sure if
students, but possibly students as well, on the one-to-one program. We are self-
assessing…that’s how the district is monitoring the effectiveness and looking at data with
regard to how it’s being used and whether or not it’s meeting the overall purpose…test
scores and grades are part of that.
Teacher C shared,
Okay, so I think what our district is really good at is, though it feels like, with the
professional development, it’s being pushed on to us, I’ve never felt the pressure in the
classroom to have to use it. I feel like our new administration at the district level has that
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 92
philosophy where they give you the tools, but you’re not…I haven’t felt that way. I do
like to have the kids share a computer versus one-on-one. Part of that reason is, at the
end of the day, I want them to collaborate.

Figure 20. Understand Monitoring and Evaluation
Only 38.3% of teachers surveyed stated that they agreed or strongly agreed that they
understand how the district monitored and evaluated the 1:1 program (Figure 20). The largest
group of teachers, 44.7%, reported they somewhat agreed they understood the monitoring
process. This question had some of the weakest responses, showing the monitoring process may
not be as clearly articulated as district and site administrators.
The teacher responses show the organic feel of the 1:1 instructional piece with the driver
being the bond and the accountability of functioning in that type of funding model. Monitoring
piece is a living arm of the district, as demonstrated by the superintendent’s transparency in
reporting on technology at every board meeting during a segment titled “bright spots” and in
speeches made at local organizations. The superintend said,
10.6%
27.7%
44.7%
12.8%
4.3%
strongly agree agree somewhat agree disagree strongly disagree
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
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 93
When we first passed the bond, because we were going to give a device to every kid, and
we’re using bond money, we felt a pretty significant obligation to report back to the
community, “How’s your investment doing?” We realized that we couldn’t draw a
straight line from the technology to any one thing. Instead, we’re just taking all of
whatever’s happening that we can measure and giving the technology some credit. I have
a state of the schools breakfast we give every October, September. It’s a big community
thing. About 300 people come. It’s really nice. We just throw up on the screen all these
successes, and people are going crazy. They’re excited and feel like they’ve made a good
investment, and I think they have.
Summary
This chapter reported the findings from interview and survey data designed to answer the
four guiding questions. The findings indicate the district created a culture promoting teacher
inclusiveness in the process of rolling out a 1:1 initiative and that their self-efficacy was
considered throughout the process. Regarding research question 1, the major findings were that,
from the onset, infrastructure was considered to ensure teachers had what they needed to make
the 1:1 program work. Although not explicitly stated, the planning for and the acting on the
bond passage prepared schools for the inflow of 20,000 devices on the front end with
procurement and infrastructure as well as on the back end with tech support. This support
continued through the second year and into the third year of implementation with the district
working on buying dark fiber to increase bandwidth. Data pertaining to the second research
question showed that the administration took teacher self-efficacy into account with the planning
of the 21st CLC fellows program. Participation in this program was voluntary, and the district’s
aim was to support early adopters, followed by the second wave of adopters, to create a critical
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 94
mass of usage, creating a culture of classroom technology use. Although a teacher reported the
professional development felt pushed, the use of devices in the classroom was not pushed to the
point of shutting down staff.
The third research question asked how professional development influenced teacher self-
efficacy in terms of technology implementation. The findings revealed that teachers felt their
self-efficacy improved following professional development. Further, the culture of building
capacity in teacher leaders through the 21st CLC program helped to reinforce literature
suggesting that collegiality among teachers is a strong indicator of implementation success
(Fullen, 2007). Finally, data pertaining to research question four discussed the districts
development of an instructional technology plan that includes a budget and evaluation of the
initiative. The major finding for question four was that the district had a unique budget source
for program sustainability in place that was not contingent on state funding. Their funding
source was in the form of a bond measure with monitoring criteria that outside of typical school
funding accountability. The findings also indicated that, from the district down to the sites, there
was an understanding of instructional expectations such that the superintendent and assistant
superintendent set the tone of student achievement goals for the district and, then, develop site
goals with the principals. These goals are tied to the principal’s evaluation and are monitored
closely for student engagement, not a specific use of devices in each classroom.
In Chapter Five, there will be a discussion of the research, further conclusions and
implications of the research. Finally, recommendations for future research will be reported.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 95
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This chapter provides a brief overview of the study by explaining its background and
purpose, summarizes findings, discusses strengths and weaknesses and presents implications for
practice. Finally, a discussion of implications for future research are discussed and followed by
concluding thoughts.
Background
School administrators, in the quest to prepare students for the demands of the 21st
century and global economy (Wagner, 2008) and for the new California Common Core standards
that include high-stakes accountability measures in the form of web-based assessments, look to
1:1 laptop or device programs as a solution (Lei & Zhao, 2008; Penuel, 2006). School leaders
also face both internal and external accountability pressure to implement technology initiatives to
address additional challenges schools face, such as the digital divide (Garland & Wotton, 2002;
Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004), while also maximizing monetary resources (Bauter, 2013).
The vast challenges of implementing a 1:1 device initiative district- and school-wide, as
in Suburban School District and Suburban High School are many, and this study focused on how
consideration of quality professional development, the change process, funding for sustainability,
technical infrastructure and Internet connectivity, monitoring and evaluation, and self-efficacy
regarding teachers’ use of computers were addressed and how the aforementioned elements
ultimately affected teacher self-efficacy.
Statement of the Problem
Implementation of a 1:1 devices program in school districts has been at the forefront of
news stories in the popular media, and, at times, the news was not good. Despite best intentions,
school districts often start initiatives to improve student learning and close the digital divide only
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 96
to abandon the projects due to poor planning (Barshay, 2014). Based on mistakes made at large
districts, such as LAUSD’s iPad roll out and scores of others, districts seek more information and
research before program implementation. Processes should be driven by a vision, and
transparency should be a hallmark for all stakeholders. Having the proper leadership traits and
information is paramount to avoiding failure. Although there is value to having state-of-the-art
technology in students’ hands to close achievement gaps and establish college-going
environments, plans must be well thought out. Program implementation can add value to
classroom learning environments but does bring unique and complex challenges (Dunleavy et al.,
2007). A set of implementation information or tools will help district and site administrators
successfully deal with implementation to maximize limited funds and realize program goals.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify and understand how the district leaders planned
for and implemented a 1:1 computer laptop or tablet device program. The study focused on how
educational leaders took quality professional development into consideration, managed the
change process, identified and secured adequate funding for a multi-year program, ensured
technical infrastructure, instituted a monitoring and evaluation process and considered self-
efficacy regarding the use of computers. This study was also concerned with how these elements
affected teacher self-efficacy.
Research Questions
 How does the school’s technology infrastructure (Internet capacity, 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?
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 97
 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?
Summary of the Findings
Data pertaining to the four guiding questions revealed the district considered teacher self-
efficacy from the onset of the initiative. Following the bond passage to secure funding for
infrastructure and sustainability, teachers were at the center of putting devices in classrooms and
in students’ hands. Because of the way the superintendent funded the project, distractions and
fears of sustainability were dissipated. This directly speaks to Hall’s (2013) framework for
change and added to teacher comfortability and confidence as the district moved forward with
the initiative (Chauncey, 2010).
Results for research question one showed major considerations taken in terms of
sustainability, budget, infrastructure and professional development since inception of the
initiative. Teachers received devices prior to the rollout and the most important piece of the
initiative was the bond measure that provided funding for 30 years. Teachers had the tools to
teach in terms of the devices, reliability of bandwidth, and the repair system. The tenets of
Hall’s (2013) framework for change, as well as the elimination of distractions during the
implementation process, added to the positive teacher response and comfort (Chauncey, 2010).
Findings pertaining to research question two show that teachers at Suburban High School
clearly understood the district’s position on teaching expectations and how the devices were to
be used in the classroom. Teachers were involved with the 21st CLC fellows program and the
consequent rollout of devices as a part of the greater district technology plan from the onset.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 98
This practice of including teachers in the process produced positive results. A strong indicator of
success was collaboration among teachers along with helping each other technically through the
21st CLC and with technology coaches (Fullen, 2007).
Results pertaining to the third research question gleaned that professional development
was in direct response to teachers’ needs regarding the technology. There was an organic feel to
the professional development with the technology coaches as well as with peers who were
currently or had been part of the 21st CLC fellows program. Teachers were comfortable asking
questions and were drivers for continued professional development that would meet their needs.
Results for the final research question revealed the district planned very well with respect
to funding. The bond measure was designed to replace devices in cycles for 30 years. This
means there is no need to set aside large portions of the district’s annual budget. One of the
important findings was that, because this initiative was bond-funded, the superintendent made
reported at each board meeting and through various community organizations to show how the
community’s tax dollars were being used. Further, as an instructional accountability tool, a
rubric was created to align the district’s mission and vision for all learners with technology in the
classroom. This was understood from the district office down to the classroom. Teachers
interviewed felt that expectations were clear and that they had the professional latitude to work
with administration to integrate technology into their pedagogy without a top-down specific
demand. The plan was not about the device, which does nothing to address the new needs of
modern learners, but about the pedagogy (Richardson, 2013). The expectations were to engage
students, not to use technology for a specific amount of time during the class period. This
freedom of choice, coupled with support from peers and administrators, made teachers feel
comfortable and confident using technology.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 99
Emergent Themes
 The district secured a unique funding source in the bond measure.
 There was continuity in expectations from the superintendent down to the teachers.
 Administrators and teachers believed self-efficacy was considered in the process of
implementation and that the process was inclusive from the start.
 Evaluation and monitoring of the 1:1 initiative were clear.
 The district’s focus was on student engagement and preparation for the 21st century, not
device use.
 Communication was key to all stakeholders’ understanding the program goals.
Limitations
One limitation was the time available to collect data. Another was that the sample was
small. These limitations reduce the generalizability of the findings. In addition, self-reported
data from surveys and interviews regarding self-efficacy relied on only respondents and
interviewees. Responses do not reflect the entire staff and are, therefore, difficult to generalize.
Another limitation was that, as this was a case study, findings were unique to Suburban High
School and are, therefore, also difficult to generalize. They do, however, offer deep and rich
insight to the creation and implementation of a 1:1 device initiative.
Implications for Practice
This case study provided insight into the process of implementing a 1:1 device initiative
and how, through the process, district and site administration considered teacher self-efficacy.
The focus of this study was role the of teacher self-efficacy in the initiative’s success. The
research was clear that teacher attitudes and beliefs about integrating technology can be a major
barrier in implementation (Hew & Brush, 2007). Further, administrators must have a grasp of
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 100
how teacher beliefs regarding the value of technology translates into classroom practices (Kim et
al., 2013).
Planning and having long- and short-term goals for a technology initiative are paramount
for its success. The initiative took shape in the planning phase considering funding,
infrastructure, professional development and, most importantly, stakeholder experiences (Gerger,
2014). The lack of a plan or policy to successfully implement an initiative has repeatedly shown
that failure will take place at the implementation level (Fullan, 2007; Hall, 2010; Levin &
Schrum, 2014). A starting point, based on the research, for a district attempting to develop a
new technology initiative is to look at the TPACK framework (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009;
M. J. Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2013; Matthew J. Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007; Matthew J
Koehler & Mishra, 2009). It creates a forum for discussion on implementation plans and policy
for introducing a technology initiative (Brantley-Dias & Ertmer, 2013). It is from this planning
stage that funding, sustainability, infrastructure, ongoing device repair, instructional expectations
and professional development can be discussed and fleshed out.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the results of this study, the following areas for further research emerged:
 Research the implications of 2:1 versus 1:1 high schools to identify which better
prepares students for the 21st century and which is more sustainable.
 Current funding models for 1:1 technology initiatives.
 Adapting learning environments to technology, moving away from traditional bell
schedules and days of the week.
 Conducting a longitudinal study of the effectiveness of 1:1 technology initiatives as
students matriculate to colleges and universities with a focus on 21st century skills.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 101
Conclusion
As states demand technology for testing and accountability purposes, and as the world
becomes more technological, public school students must access technology. The Suburban
Unified School District superintendent shared that the initiative was sparked by passage of a
bond measure and the opportunity to quickly move forward to outfit the entire district with
devices and professional development. This situation was unique, but is sought after by many
school districts. The advice of the research and the superintendent was that planning was the
nexus of success. In retrospect, the superintendent wished things would have moved slowly and
allowed more time to plan, but they came together and included all stakeholders in the process
using current research to guide the way. The success of the initiative was due to funding and a
collaborative culture built on communication, inclusion and respect. The superintendent shared
that it was those three attributes, communication, inclusion and respect, which will sustain an
initiative. This study showed that considering stakeholder self-efficacy was an important aspect
to introducing new technology and method of pedagogy. Lowering of anxiety and creating a
level of comfort within a district allows teachers to take risks in the classroom. Finally, it must
be noted that the Suburban Unified School District, driven by an overarching mission and vision,
took the process into account above else. A process that provided teachers a voice from the
onset made the initiative successful before delivery of the first device.
Further case studies conducted by Anders (2017), Burciaga (2017), and Garcia (2017)
report similar findings as teacher self-efficacy was reported to be a significant factor in the
implementation process in all three studies. The researcher recommends exploring their studies
for further implications and conclusions regarding self-efficacy of teachers as part of
successfully implementing 1:1 technology with high fidelity.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 102
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
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,
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 103
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 - LA
Times. Retrieved March 21, 2016, 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, 103–128.
doi: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, 3–17. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Brown, A., & Green, T. D. (2008). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Making the
most of mobility and ubiquity. In Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, 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). Enrollment by ethnicity for 2014-15: School
enrollment by ethnicity. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/EthnicEnr.aspx?cType=ALL&cGender=B&cYea
r=2014-15&Level=School&cSelect=Burroughs+High--1964337-
1931237&cChoice=SchEnrEth
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 104
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 Publishing Group.
Chesbro, P., & Boxler, N. (2010). Weaving the fabric of professional development in the 21st
century through technology. Journal of Staff Development, 31, 48–53. Retrieved from ERIC
database.
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, Inc.
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). 2005 Henrico County
Public Schools iBook survey report. Arlington, VA.
Demeulle, L., Lowther, D. L., & Morrison, G. R. (1998). Integrating computer technology into
the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Dexter, S. (2011). School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of
School Leadership, 21, 166–189. Retrieved from ERIC database.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 105
Dunleavy, 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, 5–13. Retrieved from
www.asianvu.com/digital-library/educational_technology/earle.pdf
Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology
innovations. Journal on Research on Computing in Education, 23, 298–305. doi:
10.1080/08886504.1990.10781963
Ensminger, D. C., & Surry, D. W. (2008). Relative ranking of conditions that facilitate
innovation implementation in the USA, 24, 611–626. Retrieved from
https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/1194
Ensminger, D. C., Surry, D. W., Porter, B. E., & Wright, D. (2004). Factors contributing to the
successful implementation of technology innovations weaving the fabric of professional
development. Educational Technology & Society, 7, 61–72. doi: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, 255–284. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership across the system. Insight. Retrieved from
http://michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13396061760.pdf
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 106
Fullan, M. (2011). Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform. Seminar Series 204.
Retrieved from www.michaelfullan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13396088160.pdf
Garcia, G. (2017). Elements of a 1:1 computer laptop program in a Los Angeles County high
school. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA.
Garland, V. E., & Wotton, S. E. (2002). Bridging the digital divide in public schools. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 30, 115–123.
http://ets.sagepub.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/content/30/2/115.full.pdf+html
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in Online
learning: Interaction is not enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 133–148.
doi: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 beach unified school
district: A case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PQDT Open. (3647116)
Glaser, B. S., & Strauss, A. (1968). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. London, UK: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in
the classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63–76. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/195592643?pq-
origsite=summon&accountid=14749
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 107
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. Retrieved from www.iste.org
Hall, G. E. (2013). Evaluating change processes. Journal of Educational Administration, 51,
264-289. doi: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, 1-17. Retrieved from
ERIC database.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
41, 393-416. doi: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, 677–694.
doi: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
Research and Development, 55, 223–252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 108
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, 343–367. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases
integration of technology into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
21), 37–56. doi:10.1080/1475939X.2012.659894
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2010). A national survey of barriers to integrating information
and communication technologies into literacy instruction. 59th Yearbook of the National
Reading Conference. Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference.
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
International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy:
Content for the study of technology (3rd Edition). Reston, Virginia: International
Technology Education Association. http://www.iteea.org/TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computes in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Columbus,
OH: Prentice-Hall.
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, 12-16. Retrieved from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num2/emerging/
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 109
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). The use of computer tools to support
meaningful learning. AACE Journal, 16, 77–92. Retrieved from
www.learntechlib.org/d/23647
Keppler, M., Weiler, S. C., & Maas, D. (2014). Focused ubiquity: A purposeful approach to
providing students with laptops. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 278–288. Retrieved
from www.ifets.info/journals/17_4/19.pdf
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.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60–70.
doi: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), p. 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, 740–762. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.012
Lane, D. M. M. (2003). Early evidence from the field the Maine learning technology initiative:
Impact on students and learning occasional paper #1: Center for Education Policy, Applied
Research and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine. Applied Research and Evaluation,
University of Southern Maine.
Larson, L. C., & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 47, 121–123. doi:10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 110
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, 97–122. doi:10.2190/EC.39.2.a
Levin, B., & Schrum, L. (2014). Lessons learned from secondary schools using technology for
school improvement: It’s just not that simple! Journal of School Leadership, 24, 640–665.
Retrieved from https://rowman.com/page/JSL
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, 284–295.
doi: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. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 417–430.
Retrieved from www.iste.org
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: 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)
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 111
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, 408–429.
doi: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
Moersch, C. (2015a). Current Instructional Practices Framework. 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, 447–472. Retrieved
from ERIC database.
Next Generation Science Standards. (2016) A framework for K-12 science education. Retrieved
from http://www.nextgenscience.org/
Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2015). 2015 Wyoming recalibration report. Retrieved from
www.picusodden.com/2015-wyoming-recalibration-report
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 112
Overbay, A., Mollette, M., & Vasu, E. S. (2011). A technology plan that works. Educational
Leadership, 68, 56–59. Retrieved from www.eval.fi.ncsu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/a-technology-plan-that-works.pdf
Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved
from www.p21.org/storage/documents/docs/P21_framework_0816.pdf
Patton M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A
research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 329–348.
doi:1.541.302.3777
Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2000). Does
professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study.
American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, Washington, DC. Retrieved
from: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html
Richardson, W. (2013). Students first, not stuff. Educational Leadership, 70, 10–14. Retrieved
from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx
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
Saltinski, R. (2014). Ethics and technology: The good, the bad, and the ugly in the Los Angeles
USD iPad project (Vol. 57).
Schmidt, M., Weinstein, T., Niemic, R., & Walberg, H. J. (1985). Computer-assisted instruction
with exceptional children. The Journal of Special Education, 19, 493–501.
doi:10.1177/002246698501900411
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 113
Schonfield, J. W. (1995). Computers and classroom culture. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
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, 241–261. Retrieved from ERIC database.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1–23. Retrieved from http://hepg.org/her-home/home
Silberman, H. F. (1962). Application of research on programmed instruction to school systems
(No. SP 949). System Development Corp: Santa Monica, CA.
Silvernail, D.L., & Harris, W.J. (2003). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative: Teacher,
student, and school perspectives: Mid-year evaluation report. Maine Education Policy
Research Institute: Portland, ME. Retrieved from
https://maine.gov/mlti/articles/research/Mid-Year%20Evaluation2003.pdf
Silvernail, D. L., & Lane, D. M. M. (2003). The impact of Maine’s one-to-one laptop program
on middle school teachers and studetns. Phase one summary evidence. Research report #1.
Maine Education Policy Research Institute: Portland, ME. Retrieved from
http://usm.maine.edu/cepare/Reports/MLTI_Report1.pdf
Simonson, M. (2007). Course management systems. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8,
7–9. Retrieved from
www.coursemanagementsystems.pbworks.com/f/course+management+systems.pd
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 114
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2016). Smarter Assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.smarterbalanced.org/assessments/
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, 151–158.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00076.x
Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.
Cambridge, MA: 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, 253–271.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782415
Venezky, R., & Osin, L. (1991). The intelligent design of computer-assisted instruction. New
York, NY: Longman.
Wagner, T. (2008). The seven survival skills for careers, college, and citizenship. In Hacker, A.
(2011). 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. (202–205).
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, 562–588.
doi:10.1177/0895904804266469
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 115
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, 179-225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791
Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2007). Internet Access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2005.
Retrieved from www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf
Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003). E-learning: emerging
uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and
Development, 7, 245–258. doi:10.1046/j.1360-3736.2003.00184.x
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, 1–26. Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1611
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, 165-205. doi:10.3102/00028312039001165
Woodward, J., & Reith, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in Special
Education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 203–536.
doi:10.3102/00346543067004503
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, 279–299.
doi: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, 279–298.
doi:10.1007/s13394-012-0063-2
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 116
Zucker, A. (2009). Assessment made Easy: Students flourish in a one-to-one laptop program.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 36, 18–21. Retrieved from ERIC database.
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. SRI
International. DRI Project, P12269: Washington, DC.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 117
Appendix A
Recruitment Letter
Hello Research Participant,

My name is Anthony Zegarra, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education
at University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation,
under the supervision of Pedro Garcia, Ph.D. The aim of this study is to examine teacher self-
efficacy and 1:1 technology implementation. You are cordially invited to participate in the study.

Participation in the study is voluntary. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete
an online survey and possibly participate in an interview. The online survey is anticipated to take
no more than fifteen minutes to complete. Depending on your responses to the survey and your
availability, you may be asked to be interviewed. The interview may take place online, in-person
or via phone; is anticipated to take approximately 30 minutes to complete and will be audio-
taped with your permission. Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times. If
you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at zegarra@usc.edu.

Thank you for your time,

Anthony Zegarra

Doctoral Candidate –
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 118
Appendix B
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.

Anthony Zegarra

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
Math
Science
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 119
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

9. The 1:1 laptop or tablet device program has improved my ability to teach students 21st
century skills (innovation, collaboration, assessment and analysis of information,
communication).
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 120
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

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 121
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.

Yes No

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

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 122
Appendix C
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 Anthony Zegarra, 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 Suburban 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?

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

2. Have you been a member of the faculty at the beginning of the 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 that you
would be able 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.
Briefly describe your level of expertise in integrating computers into your teaching and
student learning prior to the program implementation.

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 123
4. After you have participated in the school or district professional development for ___
months or years, 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 21st century skills a goal of the
program?

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

8. 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?
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 using computers?
11. How would you rate the effectiveness of the school’s ability to fix computer problems?

12. Briefly describe how the 1:1 computer program is being monitored or evaluated now and
in the future?

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

LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 124
Appendix D
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 Anthony Zegarra, 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 Suburban 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?
LEADERSHIP AND TECHNOLOGY IMPLIMENTATION 125

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 The purpose of this study was to identify and gain an understanding of how district leaders who oversee Suburban High School, a Southern California public comprehensive high school, planned for and implemented a 1:1 technology program using both computer laptops and tablet devices and took teacher self-efficacy into account through the implementation process. Data were collected and triangulated using a mixed-methods approach. The data revealed that teacher self-efficacy was a major consideration from the start of the technology initiative and that teachers felt supported, especially with professional development provided by the district. Further, the district secured funding to sustain the program for many years to come and was clear in communicating program expectations internally and externally. Findings support research on self-efficacy, planning for instruction, sustainability and continued monitoring of program goals.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

Elementary STEM policies, practices and implementation in California

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

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

The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction

PDF

Examining mathematics anxiety and mathematics teaching self-efficacy of elementary school teachers in a Hawaii school district

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

What is the relationship between early childhood teachers' training on the development of their teaching self-efficacy?

PDF

An examination of teachers’ perceived value and knowledge of mathematical development in early childhood settings

PDF

Mathematics Engineering Science Achievement and persistence in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors: the influence of MESA on the retention of first generation females in STEM...

PDF

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

PDF

Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in the Inland Empire

PDF

Best practices charter school CEOs are implementing to recruit and retain teachers

PDF

Women of color: self-efficacy and sustainability as administrators in education

Asset Metadata

Creator Zegarra, Anthony (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/07/2017

Defense Date 01/10/2017

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

Tag 1:1 technology,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher self-efficacy,technology implementation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email anthonyzegarra43@yahoo.com,zegarra@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-329693

Unique identifier UC11255864

Identifier etd-ZegarraAnt-5001.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-329693 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ZegarraAnt-5001.pdf

Dmrecord 329693

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Zegarra, Anthony

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