University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 1
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTIONS OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION:
A MIXED-METHODS CASE STUDY OF KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS
by
Julia N. Tran
____________________________________________________________________
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 2018

Copyright 2018 Julia N. Tran
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Tuan and Emily, for instilling in me the value
and importance of life-long learning and academic excellence. Without their sacrifices, the
morals that they have taught me, and the unconditional love and support that they have given me,
this milestone achievement would not have been possible. If there is only one thing anyone
grasps from reading this, I hope that it is my passion for the education field, especially early
childhood education.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I acknowledge and thank the following people for supporting me through this journey:
my dissertation committee, for advice, guidance, and support; all of my professors at USC
Rossier School of Education, for sharing their knowledge, challenging my thinking, and teaching
me the skills to be a competent writer, critical consumer, reflective educator, and mindful leader;
and Francisco Noyola. Without his shoulder to cry on, his tolerance of my complaining, his faith
in my abilities, and his unconditional support and love, I would have finished this journey
emotionally and mentally exhausted
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter 1: Introduction 10
Background of the Problem 10
Debate on Technology 11
Negative impact and passive use 11
Quality content and intentional use 12
Access and equity 13
Benefits 13
Cognitive and social skills 14
Dual language learners 14
Connecting home and school 15
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions 16
Significance of the Study 17
Organizational Context and Mission 19
Assumptions 20
Limitations 20
Delimitations 21
Definition of Terms 21
Organization of the Dissertation 23
Chapter 2: Literature Review 25
History of Technology Integration 25
Technology in Elementary Schools 27
21st-Century Skills 29
Barriers 31
First-Order Barriers 32
Access, resources, and support 32
Technical and training support 33
Second-Order Barriers 34
Teachers’ beliefs and practices 34
Teacher training 37
Teacher resistance 39
Theoretical Framework 41
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge 41
Conceptual Framework 43
Chapter Summary 46
Chapter 3: Methods 49
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 49
Research Design 49
Site and Setting 50
Participants 51
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 5
Data Collection 53
Survey 54
Observations 55
Interviews 57
Data Analysis 59
Ethical Considerations 60
Credibility and Trustworthiness 61
Chapter 4: Results 62
Findings for Research Question 1 62
Positive Perceptions of Technology on Teaching and Learning 63
Teacher 1 65
Pedagogical beliefs 65
Pedagogical practices 66
Teacher 2 67
Pedagogical beliefs 67
Pedagogical practices 68
Teacher 3 69
Pedagogical beliefs 70
Pedagogical practices 71
Teacher 4 71
Pedagogical beliefs 72
Pedagogical practices 73
Teacher 5 74
Pedagogical beliefs 74
Pedagogical practices 75
Discussion 76
Findings for Research Question 2 76
Technology as a Teaching and Learning Tool 77
Teaching tool 78
Learning tool 79
Discussion 81
Findings for Research Question 3 82
Finding 84
Discussion 84
Summary of Findings 85
Chapter 5: Conclusion 87
Conceptual Framework Revisited 88
Themes 92
Technology as a Resourceful Tool 92
Student-Centered Learning and 21st-Century Skills 93
Positive Perspectives 96
Limitations of the Study 97
Improvements 99
Implications 99
Recommendations for Future Research 100
Conclusion 101
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 6
References 102
Appendices
Appendix A: Teacher Survey 111
Appendix B: Follow-Up Teacher Interview Protocol 115
Appendix C: Observation Protocol 117
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Observations 56
Table 2: Interviews 58
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK)
framework model and its knowledge components 43
Figure 2: Conceptual model combining the Technological Pedagogical and Content
Knowledge (TPACK) model with the Model of Teacher Change 45
Figure 3: Teachers’ beliefs about technology’s impact on teaching, learning, motivation,
and engagement. 64
Figure 4: Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices 83
Figure 5: Conceptual model combining the TPACK framework with the Model of
Teacher Change 88
Figure 6: Revised conceptual model 89

TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 9
ABSTRACT
This case study examined the pedagogies and perceptions of kindergarten teachers who
integrate technology in their practice. While there has been a significant increase in technology
integration in K–12 schools, the U.S. Department of Education has reported that the use of
technology in the classroom tends to be meaningless and low level. For that reason, more
attention should be focused on how teachers are using technology for teaching as it influences
students’ learning and achievement. It is imperative to investigate technology integration in the
early years because kindergarten serves as the entry point to the K–12 educational system and,
according to research, young children are most vulnerable to the effects of technology. The focus
of this study was teaching practices of kindergarten teachers at a high-achieving and technology-
rich elementary school in an urban setting. A mixed-methods approach included surveys,
interviews, and observations to triangulate the data and provide insight into teachers’ pedagogies
and perceptions as they relate to how the teachers integrate technology in their classrooms.
Analysis of the data revealed that technology was fully integrated into the classrooms when it is
used a resourceful tool for learning in multiple subjects and not used as a subject on its own.
Teachers’ confidence in their technological pedagogy and positive beliefs towards technology’s
impact also played a significant role in the classroom’s successful technology integration. The
findings of this study can provide a better understanding of the pedagogies that guide technology
integration and the beliefs held by kindergarten teachers regarding technology’s impact on
teaching and learning.
Keywords: technology integration, pedagogy, perception, teaching, kindergarten
Running head: TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 10
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
In a US nationally representative sample of 2,326 parents of children aged eight and
under, Connell, Lauricella, and Wartella (2015) found that the usage of technology by young
children has increased significantly. 90% of parents reported that by the age of eight, their
children have used a computer and 81% have played games or used apps on a portable device
(i.e. cell phone, handheld gaming system, or tablet). This rise in technology has moved beyond
the home setting and into the school environment. Technological tools that have been used in the
home environment to entertain and distract children while parents work are now used as teaching
and learning tools in the classroom (Cuban, 2001; Rosen, 2010). As a result of this rise in
technology use, much focus has been on the impact of extended exposure to technology on
children’s development. Findings from many studies indicate that extended exposure to
technology and the media is harmful (Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Tomopoulos et al., 2010),
especially for children younger than two or three years (Christakis & Garrison, 2009). This
concern has led the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP; 2011) and the White House Task
Force on Childhood Obesity (2010) to suggest a 30-minute daily limit for children two years old
and no exposure time for children younger than two years.
However, in the past 30 years, technology has become more prevalent in the school
environment. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2009), computer
access has increased from an average of 6.1 students to one computer in 2000 to an average ratio
of 3.8 students to one computer in the classroom in 2008. In the most recent report on
educational technology in public schools, NCES (2016) reports that computer access in the
classroom continues to increase with almost 70% of public schools transitioning to a 1:1 ratio of
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 11
students to computers, the average ratio is now 1.7 students to one computer. As a result, there
has been a shift in research to focus on how technological tools can be used to support children’s
learning and development. However, the problem is that the extended body of research on the
utility of technology in the personal, professional, and educational realms has generated two
opposing perspectives on the value of technology in children’s development.
Debate on Technology
In support of technology use in the education system, it is argued that technology
provides opportunities to enhance teaching and learning (Rideout, Vandewater, & Wartella 2003;
Ucar, 2015). Technology is also seen as a medium to improve teachers’ efficiency and teachers’
relationships with families and parents (Boardman, 2007; Knauf, 2016). In opposition, it is
argued that technology can impede the development of young children when it is used passively
and meaninglessly (Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Lee et al., 2009). To understand this debate, the
following sections present arguments from the opposing sides and bring forth issues to be
considered when evaluating the utility and value of technology in children’s learning.
Negative impact and passive use. Some researchers have focused on the undesirable
impact of background television (Christakis & Garrison, 2009), passive overuse of screen time
(AAP, 2011), and the relationship between child obesity and technology/media usage
(Vandewater et al., 2007; White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity, 2010). There is
evidence of possible negative outcomes related to passive and improper technology use, such as
behavioral issues in relation to violent behaviors (Lee et al., 2009), focus and attention problems
related to overstimulation by technological media (Anderson & Pempek, 2005), decreased
academic performance, and deprivation in socialization and language development due to
excessive passive screen time and isolation (Vandewater et al., 2007). These negative effects
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 12
related to technology and media engagement have created concerns for parents and hesitation on
the part of educators to use technology with young children.
Quality content and intentional use. From the positive stance, evidence indicates that,
when technology and digital media are used appropriately with effective instructions and lesson-
specific content, students’ learning can be optimized (Couse & Chen, 2010; Cuban, 2001;
Vandewater et al., 2007). Moreover, advocates of technology usage argue that it is the
educational content that matters, not the format in which it is presented (Plowman, Stephen, &
McPake, 2010; Plowman, Stevenson, Stephen, & McPake, 2012). For instance, a lackluster
writing lesson would be as ineffective on a computer as it would be using paper and pencil.
Clark, Yates, Early, and Moulton (2010) analyzed media influence and found that the differences
in students’ learning outcomes are due to instructional design, not the technological tools used to
deliver the instruction. Similarly, Philip and Garcia (2013) argued that it is the pedagogy behind
technology that influences students’ learning. They emphasized that the presence of technology
alone cannot improve learning. Jong (2016) concluded that technology does not cause learning;
rather, it is the guidance aimed at a specific inquiry process and integrated into the instructional
method that facilitates learning. Advocates of technology also argue that the way the learning
tool is utilized contributes to its effectiveness (Couse & Chen, 2010; Plowman et al., 2012). For
that reason, when examining the effectiveness of technology and digital media, it is important
also to examine the quality of the content in parallel with the learning tool. Technology is only a
tool for delivering instruction; technology alone cannot influence students’ learning positively or
negatively. The implication of these findings is that the instructional method and the pedagogy
behind the technology usage exert an impact on learning (Philip & Garcia, 2013). How teachers
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 13
and students use technology in the classroom mediates its impact; this notion applies to other
learning tools and content for young children.
Access and equity. Access to the Internet and technology for young children from
disadvantaged backgrounds is as prevalent today as access to print media was prevalent in the
early 1960s (Rosen, 2010). Considering the potential positive impact of technology and
interactive media on young children’s development and learning, equal opportunity for children
from various economic backgrounds must be accounted for when schools select and integrate
technological tools and media in the classrooms. According to Resnick (2008), the International
Society for Technology Education (2007) noted that, by the age of five years, children have basic
skills in digital literacy, which they defined as technology operations and concepts. However,
children from lower socioeconomic status families with limited resources have little to no access
to the latest technologies in their home, school, or community, compared to children from more
privileged backgrounds (Calvert, Rideout, Woolard, Barr, & Strouse, 2005; Lee et al., 2009).
Therefore, it is important for educators to take into account issues of access and equity when
integrating technology in the classroom to ensure that all children from diverse financial
backgrounds and cultures are provided equal opportunities to participate and learn, in order not
to widen the achievement gap.
Benefits
This section contains a discussion of common findings on the positive impact of
technology when it is implemented meaningfully and appropriately. Three main areas have
received the most research related to technology use and are therefore presented: cognitive and
social skills, dual language learners, and connecting home with school. The findings in this
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 14
section highlight the opportunities that technology affords when it is grounded in meaningful
teaching pedagogy and relevant instructional methods.
Cognitive and social skills. When technology is used actively and appropriately, it can
extend children’s learning and foster positive cognitive and social development (Rideout et al.,
2003; Ucar, 2015). Media from technological devices and programs can expose disadvantaged
young children to social worlds that they might not have had the opportunity to experience, such
as animals, people, objects, activities, and cultural tools from a range of geographic locations.
Chiong and Shuler (2010) found that interactive games that involve collaborative play by
children also supported children’s social skills. Lisenbee (2009) examined digital tools for early
childhood curriculum and found that the technological functions of certain tools could scaffold
children’s cognition as it allowed them to document, save, revisit, and revise their work easily,
using various forms of presentation such as texts, images, and sounds. Researchers found that
opportunities to explore technology and interactive media brought out the children’s creativity
and problem-solving skills by allowing them to control the tool and the outcome of the
experience as they understood the tool’s functionality and applied it to how it might be used in
real life (Ucar, 2015). When technology is used interactively and playfully, it can support
children’s creativity and cognition.
Dual language learners. Dual language children benefit in English and home language
development from access to information in the home language (López, 2010; Vandewater et al.,
2007). Technology and digital media allow teachers to find and incorporate culturally and
linguistically relevant activities, music, and stories for English Language Learner (ELL) students
so that they can make active connections from the home language to the school language
(Lacina, 2004; López, 2010). In Lacina’s (2004) assessment of how technology in the classroom
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 15
can promote language acquisition, it was stressed that technology should not replace personal
interactions. For technology to be beneficial to ELL students, it should be used in a way that
provides children opportunities to hear the pronunciation accurately, see the spelling, and assist
in translation of English to home language and vice versa. Moreover, technology can assist
teachers to understand the children’s home language by recording and translating the students’
dictation of their work. According to López (2010), technology can ensure equitable access for
dual language learners and improve communication between teachers and students.
Connecting home and school. The functionality of technology provides educators ample
opportunities to extend beyond basic communication with families. With today’s increase in
dual-worker households and single working parents, it has become more challenging for parents
and teachers to meet and for parents to be involved in their child’s school activities (Boardman,
2007; Knauf, 2016). However, Internet-based communication tools allow more flexibility and
ease for parents and teachers to meet via video calling and more opportunities for information
sharing. Knauf (2016) found that these new opportunities with technology allowed educators to
build better relationships with children’s families, exchange information easily, and share online
resources with parents. Boardman (2007) found that portable technology tools have allowed
teachers to measure and document students’ growth and create digital portfolios that include a
variety of documentation, such as pictures, audio and video, all of which can be shared with
parents. As such, technological tools have more utility than just for teaching and learning
(Rosen, 2010) as they allow parents to feel more connected to their child’s academic experience
and keep families informed.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 16
Statement of the Problem
Technological tools have become an integral part of the lives of many American children
as they grow up in what is referred to as the digital age. Research indicates the possibility of
beneficial outcomes when technology is used effectively (Cuban, 2001; Rosen, 2010). Results
from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASLHA) 2005 survey indicated that
the number of young children using technology is significantly high. Of the 1,000 parents of
children ages zero to eight who were surveyed, 68% reported that their child used tablets, 59%
used smartphones, and 44% used video games daily. These technological tools have transformed
how families operate their daily lives, how children learn in the classroom, how teachers
communicate with families, and how teachers are receiving educational and professional
development (Rideout et al., 2003; Vandewater et al., 2007). However, findings from research on
exposure time to technology (Lee et al., 2009) and how children are engaged with technology in
the classroom (Christakis & Garrison, 2009) revealed the problem of passive use of technology
to distract and entertain young children. Negative findings such as these have led many
kindergarten classrooms to omit or underutilize educational technology (Bauer & Kenton, 2005).
The problem of passive use and underutilization of technology in contrast to the ample findings
on the beneficial aspects of technology use in the classroom highlights the lack of research on
teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and its relationship to effective
technology integration. More research is needed that focuses on teachers’ pedagogy and
perceptions of technology as they relate to current technology integration practices.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
Looking at the way technology is introduced in the early school years can provide insight
into the establishment of technology integration in the education system. Therefore, the purpose
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 17
of this case study was to study kindergarten teachers’ pedagogy as it relates to technology
integration. The analysis focused on the kindergarten teachers’ technological pedagogy, teaching
pedagogy, and perceptions of educational technology. The overall goal of this study was to
examine kindergarten teachers’ pedagogical perceptions about their practices. In doing so,
teachers’ pedagogy and perceptions of technology as they relate to how they choose to integrate
technology in their classroom were explored.
Three research questions guided this study:
1. What are kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in their
pedagogical practices?
2. What is the nature of technology use in kindergarten teachers’ pedagogy?
3. What is the relationship, if any, between teachers’ beliefs, practices, and perceived
knowledge of educational technology?
Significance of the Study
Due to the fact that teachers’ usage of technology and other learning tools mediates its
impact on children’s learning (Couse & Chen, 2010), it is critical to examine kindergarten
teachers’ pedagogy related to technology integration. According to Ertmer (2005), two types of
barriers must be overcome for teachers to integrate technology into their teaching practices
effectively. Ertmer stated that first-order barriers are external impediments to teachers, such as
resources, access, and training. According to the NCES (2006), there has been an increased
average ratio of 3.8 students for every student connected to technological tools in the classroom.
Second-order barriers are internal impediments, such as teacher attitudes, beliefs, and
knowledge. Some researchers have found that teachers tend to select technological tools that
align with their attitudes and pedagogical views (Aldhafeeri, Palaiologou, & Folorunsho, 2016;
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 18
Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001). These results indicate that second-order barriers greatly
influence teachers’ ability to integrate technology effectively. Unfortunately, there are relatively
limited studies that focus on this relationship (Ertmer, 2005).
Examining technology integration in kindergarten classrooms, where the population of
young children is the most vulnerable to the effects of technology usage (Uçar, 2015), can
provide insight into how technology is being used in the classroom. Young children’s exposure
and experience with technology exert impacts on various areas of development, such as social
interactions (Chiong & Shuler, 2010), language development (López, 2010), cognitive
stimulations (Anderson & Pempek, 2005), and physical health (White House Task Force on
Childhood Obesity, 2010). This makes it imperative to understand the pedagogies related to
technology integration to ensure that the educational system takes into consideration the well-
being of students when implementing new tools or teaching methods.
Feinstein and Duckworth (2006) found that development in the early years of a child’s
life is important because it has implications for later school performance and adult outcomes.
Their findings confirmed that children’s early cognitive attainment is strongly related to later
academic success. Thus, obtaining a greater understanding of the processes that shape children’s
cognitive experiences, such as teachers’ pedagogy and practices, will help to ensure that
resources and improvements are targeted appropriately, where they are needed most.
Technology literacy is an important 21st-century skill that should be the core of
curriculum goals because it is desired that this generation of children grow up to be creators of
technology and knowledge, not passive technology users (Silva, 2009). There is an important
difference between those who know how to surf the web and use social media through
technological tools versus those who know how to manipulate and use technological tools to
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 19
create new and improved knowledge. These skills are important to differentiate because,
according to the U.S. Department of Education (2000), 60% of jobs in the market are technology
related. Hence, Cuban (2001) argued that the purpose of technology integration in the school
setting and the core of teachers’ pedagogies should be to nurture and foster a generation of the
latter to teach children skills that are desirable in the current technology and networking-savvy
economy.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organizational context in which this study is embedded is Sunny Unified School
District (SUSD; pseudonym), located in southern California. The district contains 18 elementary
schools, six middle schools, and four high schools, some of which are recognized as either
National Blue Ribbon Schools or California Gold Ribbon Schools, an honor bestowed on an elite
few. The mission of SUSD is to provide challenging and exciting curricula paired with
personalized instruction to ensure that students’ achievements are optimized. There is a strong
emphasis on technology integration throughout SUSD, including the science, technology,
engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) programs, Robotics Program, and Connect Center.
In 2015-2016, SUSD deployed approximately 24,000 Apple iPads
®
to kindergarten through
eighth-grade students and Toshiba Portégés
®
to high school students. Classrooms have been
upgraded with interactive whiteboards, Apple TV, voice amplification, and new computers for
teachers to serve SUSD’s mission of providing students an engaging classroom experience.
This study focused on the technology integration present at two elementary schools: Hiro
Elementary and Bear Magnet (pseudonyms), two distinguished elementary schools in SUSD.
From 2008 to 2016, Hiro and Bear have been recognized as California’s Distinguished Schools
and honored as California Gold Ribbon Schools. Both schools are also Apple distinguished
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 20
schools and some teachers are Google Certified Educators. About 50% of the students at Hiro
and Bear are of Asian ethnic backgrounds, 30% Caucasian, 20% Hispanic, and the remainder
biracial, African American, American Indian, or Pacific Islander. The gender distribution is
relatively even, with 51% male students and 49% female students.
In terms of the teachers’ demographics in the district, 78% are female and 21% are male.
This ratio is relatively equivalent to California’s gender distribution. The majority of the teachers
are Caucasian (76%), which is slightly higher than the California mean (67%). About 58% of the
teachers have a Master’s degree or higher, which is above California’s average of 38%.
Regarding experience, about 76% of the teachers have five or more years of experience, which
indicates a large proportion of veteran teachers.
Assumptions
Assumptions are statements that are presumed to be true and contributing to valid results.
The assumptions applicable to this case study are that the selected schools were truly identified
as high-technology-use elementary schools; the participants were honest with the information
that they provided; the participants who volunteered to take part in the study had a sincere
interest in participating and did not have any other motives, such as impressing a supervisor or
district official; an authentic picture of each classroom and daily practices were observed; and
the interview and survey questions were aligned with the goal of the study and were appropriate
to receive the types of responses that were needed to achieve the goals of the study.
Limitations
Considering the design nature of case studies, the following are limitations that may have
had a possible impact on the study’s outcome. The findings from this case study may not be
generalizable to other schools because of the study’s qualitative nature of seeking to understand
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 21
the pedagogies and perceptions of five kindergarten teachers from two elementary schools in a
district. The findings of the study were subject to the knowledge, skills, and interpretation of one
researcher. The findings from the case study are reflective only of when the observations
occurred, along with the information that the teachers provided via interviews and surveys. The
duration of classroom observations and interviews were limited to the availability and discretion
of the participants and the researcher.
Delimitations
The boundaries of this study created a few delimitations. To address the research
questions, specific and purposeful choices were made to ensure that the purpose of the study
would be achieved. The selection of the schools and the teachers was purposive, based on their
high technology usage and high student performance. Data collection was intentionally limited to
five classrooms in a high-technology integrated district for the in-depth case study approach.
Teachers’ pedagogy and practices were assessed using the Technological Pedagogical and
Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework to focus on teachers’ perceptions of technology
integration in their practice. Only kindergarten teachers were included in the sample because of
the pedagogical focus on teachers working with young children. Data collection occurred within
six weeks because of the resources and deadlines faced by the researcher.
Definition of Terms
Digital literacy: The ability to use technological tools and media to find, evaluate, create,
and communicate information; this encompasses both technology and media literacy (Rosen,
2010).
First-order barriers: The external impediments to teachers’ ability to integrate
technology into their teaching practices, such as resources, access, and training (Ertmer, 2005).
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 22
Interactive media: The digital and analog materials that serve as a form of content
intended to facilitative active and creative use by young children and encourage social
engagement with other children and adults (e.g., software programs, applications, streaming
media, some children’s television programming, e-books, the Internet; Lee et al., 2009).
Meaningful learning: The cultivation of deep understandings in learners that allows them
to construct knowledge that can be applied to real situations (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010).
Noninteractive media: The technology tools and media that are not included in the
definition and description of effective and appropriate use. This type of usage leads to passive
viewing and overexposure to screen time (Vandewater et al., 2007).
Pedagogical beliefs: The educational beliefs of educators about teaching and learning
(Ertmer, 2005).
Pedagogy: The method and practice of teaching in education (Ertmer, 2005).
Project-based learning: A teaching approach focused on learning through investigation.
Within this approach, students are engaged over a long period in a curriculum focus in which
they create knowledge through asking and refining questions, making predictions, debating
ideas, designing experiments, collecting data, and drawing conclusions (Bell, 2010).
Second-order barriers: The internal impediments to teachers’ ability to integrate
technology into their teaching practices, such as teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge
(Ertmer, 2005).
Student-centered teaching: Teachers’ pedagogy, instructional approaches, and learning
experiences of students are created and implemented with the intention of addressing the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 23
learning needs, aspirations, interests, and/or cultural backgrounds of individuals and groups of
students (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Teachers’ perceptions: The beliefs and attitudes of teachers through which they interpret
new phenomena. Perceptions play a critical role in how teachers interpret, plan, and make
decisions regarding teaching strategies and learning tasks (Niederhauser & Stoddart, 2001).
Technological pedagogy: The method and practice of teaching involving technological
tools, beyond digital literacy and requiring a deep understanding of information technology and
how to apply it productively in educational teaching and learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK): A framework for teacher
knowledge for integrating technology with three components of knowledge in the areas of
content, pedagogy, and technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Twenty-first-century skills: The core competencies of collaboration, critical thinking,
problem-solving, and digital literacy, which are believed to help students to thrive in the current
social world (Silva, 2009).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about technology integration in kindergarten
classrooms. The mission and goals of the study, as well as the framework, are introduced to
provide an understanding of the context in which the study took place. Chapter 2 provides a
review of literature related to the scope of the study, including topics related to the history of
technology integration, first- and-second-order barriers, the relationship between beliefs and
practices, and teachers’ technological pedagogy. Chapter 3 describes the methodology of the
study, including choice of participants, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 presents the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 24
data and results of analysis of the data. Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the themes that
emerged from the data, a revised conceptual framework, and recommendations for future
research.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 25
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter contains a review of literature on technology integration in the U.S.
educational system. The review focuses on the impact of technology integration as it relates to
teachers’ pedagogy, beliefs, and aptitudes. The chapter contains three key sections (a) the history
of technology integration in the education system, (b) the role of first-order and second-order
barriers in teachers’ integration of technology, and (c) the relationship between teachers’
pedagogy, beliefs, and aptitudes to teachers’ practices. The chapter concludes with a summary of
key findings and how this study contributes to the body of literature on technology integration in
education, relating specifically to young children.
History of Technology Integration
Teaching practices in the education system are constantly evolving to accommodate the
demands and expectations of society. Since the early 1980s, a national coalition of corporate
executives, venders, policy makers, public officials, and parents have shared a common goal of
reforming the education system through the use of new technologies. However, each group has
its own agenda. The corporate executives and venders seek to profit from selling the new
technologies, including hardware and software, to the education market. On the other hand,
policy makers and public officials see technology integration as a solution to historic problems in
education, such as students’ low motivation and lack of engagement. Concurrently, promoters of
social justice want to ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are not left out of this
movement. As a result, pressure from various directions within the coalition has been exerted on
educational leaders to integrate technology in schools with the belief that technology and the use
of technology would transform the education system (Cuban, 2001).
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 26
Technology integration in the U.S. education system began approximately 30 years ago
when the report A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983)
recommended that computer science be included in high school graduation requirements. It was
recommended that students be required to understand the computer as an information source and
learn how to use it (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Initially,
computers were integrated into the education system for productivity purposes. One of the three
main goals of the technology coalition was to make schools more productive and efficient.
Computers were believed to help teachers with paperwork, grading, and communications among
teachers and students (Cuban, 2001).
As technological tools continued advancement in the social world, the purpose of a
computer for teachers and the simple goal of teaching students how to use a computer also
advanced to teaching students via technological tools and incorporating technology into teaching
and learning pedagogies (Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005). This aligned with the second goal
of the coalition, to create an engaging and active teaching and learning process. Technology
itself has evolved remarkably within the past 30 years, from being viewed as a tool to replace the
traditional paper and pencil to becoming a tool to foster students’ skills as communicators
without boundary restrictions, researchers, inventors, and critical consumers (Cuban, 2001;
Dettelis, 2010).
Almost 20 years after the release of A Nation at Risk in 1983, the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB) made recommendations for technology integration in the education system.
The recommendations by NCLB highlight two significant conceptions. First, the level of
emphasis on integrating technology as a tool for teaching and learning reflects the growing
consensus among educators and society about the importance of digital literacy. Digital literacy
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 27
is defined as the ability to use technological tools and media to find, evaluate, create, and
communicate information (Rosen, 2010). This was parallel with the third goal of the coalition,
which was to ensure that the current generation of young children is prepared for the future
workplace (Cuban, 2001). Second, NCLB recommended that, by the eighth grade, all students
should have digital literacy. This recommendation illustrates the evolution of technological
importance because, 20 years before NCLB, the National Commission on Excellence in
Education had recommended that digital literacy skills be present at the high school graduate
level. As a result, by requiring digital literacy in the early years of schooling, NCLB took a
significant step toward recognizing the value and prominence of technology in education and the
economy.
Technology in Elementary Schools
Within the same year as NCLB, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
2001, Title II, also mandated the integration of technology in elementary and secondary schools.
This act exemplifies another milestone in the integration of technology in the U.S. educational
system. Beyond computers and the Internet, new technological devices have emerged and
created ample opportunities for educators to enhance teaching and learning strategies. By
mandating technology integration, the ESEA addressed the issues of access and equity to
technology to a certain extent. The NCES conducted a national district-level survey from 1994 to
2005 to measure the availability and use of educational technology in public schools. About 81%
of districts provided a district network to all schools, 73% had a formal computer replacement
plan reflected in their long-term budget, 92% offered access to online district resources to all
elementary and secondary teachers, and 72% offered access to online library catalogues for
elementary students (Gray & Lewis, 2009). These statistics provide evidence of the rapid
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 28
integration and access to technology in elementary schools and provide a positive perspective on
technology integration.
However, within the same report, while 95% of the responding districts offered teachers
professional development for integrating technology into teaching instructions, only 55%
required teachers to take the professional development courses related to technology integration.
This is an indication of the discrepancy in the rate of how technology is integrated into schools at
a rapid pace but teachers are not on the same transformative playing field. Cuban (2001) stated
that this top-down pressure for technology integration did not include buy-in by teachers; as a
result, only a marginal few were on board. It was also reported that only 58% of the districts
agreed that teachers were sufficiently trained to integrate technology in their classrooms and only
42% agreed that funding for technology integration was adequate in relation to the demands
(Gray & Lewis, 2009).
These statistics, presented by the NCES, highlight two major issues. The first issue is that
there is inadequate accountability in terms of funding to ensure that the mandates by NCLB
(2001) and ESEA (2001) for technology integration are fully carried out. The second issue is the
lack of teacher preparation and professional development to ensure that teachers have the
competencies and aptitudes to integrate technology into their teaching pedagogy. According to
Cuban (2001), there was limited funding for teachers to develop new curricula using technology.
Offering professional development may be helpful but the failure to require teachers to advance
their knowledge and skills with technology before using it as a teaching and learning tools
generates an educational system with discrepancies in student achievement.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 29
21st-Century Skills
A major question behind the emphasis on technology integration in the educational
system by mandated acts such as NCLB (2001) and ESEA (2001) is, why are digital literacy
skills so important? Educators often refer to digital literacy as a 21st-century skill, an ubiquitous
term used to define skills that demand creativity, perseverance, and problem-solving and put
emphasis on what students can do with knowledge rather than what elements of knowledge they
have (Silva, 2009). The notion of 21st-century skills has become the overarching goal of many
schools and has influenced revision of standards and assessments for teaching and learning to
reflect these skills (Miller & Bartlett, 2012). Cuban (2001) asserted that one of the values of
technology integration in education is making students more employable. Cuban pointed out that
the goal of education is to prepare the current generation of students for the future workplace.
Therefore, with the rise in technology in the economy and the possibility of technology
becoming more interwoven in daily lives, technology advocates argue that schools should assist
students in developing technological skills.
The impact of technology use on human development has been well researched. Studies
have shown that there are two distinct characteristics in the way children and young adults use
computers that translate to the skills that they acquire: passive users versus critical consumers
(Grimes & Warschauer, 2008; Miller & Bartlett, 2012). Miller and Bartlett (2012) examined how
well young adults sorted good information from bad information on the Internet. Through a
survey of more than 500 teachers, with supporting analysis from librarians and other information
literacy professionals, the researchers found that young adults were unable to discern valid and
invalid information, were not careful about information or others on the Internet, and tended to
trust the first set of information received, without sufficient analysis. The implication of this
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 30
study is that, while young adults are capable of using the Internet as a tool, they do not have the
knowledge or skills to analyze and evaluate information. The results of the study underscore the
importance of the skills to evaluate and consume critically, which are considered 21st-century
skills. According to Rosen (2010), such findings highlight the critical need for teachers to
reevaluate learning outcomes for students who are growing up in the digital age.
Appropriate use of technological tools can facilitate achievement of 21st-century skills.
Research indicates that technology-based programs such as one-to-one laptop programs can yield
positive results for student learning. Through triangulation of interviews, observations, surveys,
and analysis of students’ work, Grimes and Warschauer (2008) found that junior high students
made strong English and mathematic gains in the second year of implementation of technology.
Test scores for approximately 1,000 students were examined after the students had participated
in one-to-one laptop programs at multi-site schools over a two-year span. The scores and
interviews with teachers and students indicated that technological tools such as laptops had the
potential to facilitate writing when it served as a information-rich multimodal tool paired with
student-centered instruction.
On a similar note, Plowman et al. (2012) conducted a case study of 14 preschool children
to examine their learning with technology in the home environment. They found that children’s
active interaction with technology supported four major areas of learning. The children in the
study acquired operational skills, such as understanding the function of the mouse and keyboard.
Their knowledge was expanded through exposure to other living things, people, and places. They
developed the disposition to learn through the support of independence and persistence. Active
interaction with technology helped them to understand the role of technology in everyday life.
Based on these findings, Plowman et al. (2012) emphasized the role of technology in helping
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 31
children to acquire 21st-century skills. As Cuban (2001) stated, these 21st-century skills will
make the students employable for as-yet-unidentified technological occupations.
Barriers
While there was an extended effort for technology integration in the education system,
there were also numerous barriers. In 1996, then-President Clinton issued a five-year grant of $2
billion to the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund. The thinking behind this was that technology
could provide access to valuable information, assist student learning, and ensure a competitive
edge for the workforce, if it was thoughtfully and well integrated into the teaching curriculum.
President Clinton attached four goals to this fund: (a) Every student would have access to the
new technologies; (b) technology would connect classrooms to one another and the outside
world; (c) technology would be integrated and engaging in curricula; and (d) teachers would be
prepared and equipped to teach with technology. The first two goals dealt with access and
connection; the third and fourth goals were intended to ensure that technology was well
integrated into the education system (Cuban, 2001). In parallel, the challenges of technology
integration in the education system in the past 30 years are closely aligned with the four goals set
by President Clinton.
Work by Ertmer (1999) started the research focused on identifying the barriers most
pertinent to the education system. Ertmer’s research identified and examined internal and
external barriers, which he categorized as first-order and second-order barriers, to technology
integration in schools and in the classroom. The first-order barriers related to the first two goals
of President Clinton’s plan and the second-order barriers related to the last two goals. Since then,
numerous studies have examined these barriers. This section presents a discussion of the findings
from the body of research focused on first-order and second-order barriers. Analyzing the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 32
barriers to technology integration in education suggests possible explanations for discrepancies
in the usage of technology for teaching and learning.
First-Order Barriers
First-order barriers, which encompass resources, support, and school climate, have been
the most commonly reported barriers to technology integration. A review of 48 research studies
published between 1995 and 2006 indicated that about 40% of the studies found lack of
resources, such as limited hardware, access, time, and technical support, to be the most
prominent barriers faced by teachers as they attempted to integrate technology (Hew & Brush,
2007). These first-order resources are considered to be external barriers to the teachers because
they lie outside of the teachers’ control (Ertmer, 1999).
Access, resources, and support. According to Cuban’s (2001) historical review, through
the works of reformers, investors, and grants, many schools have been equipped with
technology. This assertion is supported by data on computer access for students. In 1981, the
ratio was approximately 125 students to one computer. This ratio dropped significantly in the
1990s to 18 students per computer. In the 2000s, the ratio continued to decrease to five students
per computer. Currently, many schools and districts are aiming for a 1:1 ratio. These ratios
suggest that the first two goals from the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund have been
achieved.
However, while many schools may report that they have technology available, the degree
to which teachers have access to the technological tools when they need them, where they need
them, and for the amount of time they need must be taken into consideration to analyze teachers’
access fairly. Pelgrum (2001) examined the perceptions of educators at the elementary and
secondary school level regarding the barriers that they believed to be impeding their ability to
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 33
integrate technology and achieve the goals of the school. This study was done at the national
level, involving three phases: school surveys, case studies of innovative technology schools, and
teacher and student surveys. The data were collected from a representative sample of primary
and secondary schools in 26 countries. Descriptive results indicated that, while a majority of the
schools reported having technology and Internet access for teachers and students, the most
needed and perceived best resources tended to be concentrated in technology classes. This means
that, while schools may have technology available, teachers might not have easy access to it if
they must compete with other teachers or classrooms for technology time.
Technical and training support. Technical and training support represent another
resource-type barrier (Karagiorgi, 2005; O’Mahony, 2003; Pelgrum, 2001). O’Mahony (2003)
investigated the access issues that prevented academic and nonacademic staff from using
technology at a secondary school. The study took an action research approach by using surveys
to obtain feedback about provision of appropriate access to the school’s technology resources
and training programs for staff. Based on the feedback from 100% of the school’s staff and 71%
of the senior students, O’Mahony found that relevant and supportive training for staff was the
major challenge reported. Similarly, Karagiorgi (2005) analyzed issues in technology
implementation at a primary school and found that poor implementation was a result of
insufficient resources that added to teachers’ workload and a limited number of technical support
personnel who were overwhelmed by teachers’ requests. These findings affirm Ertmer’s (1999)
findings on first-order barriers and illustrate that simple access is not sufficient for technology
integration. Educators need training and ongoing support to use technological tools efficiently
and effectively.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 34
Second-Order Barriers
Hew and Brush’s (2007) meta-analysis of 48 empirical studies, 43 of which came from
peer-reviewed journals, confirmed two types of technology integration barriers. Fortunately, the
statistical findings from the large body of research on first-order barriers have led to much
improvement, according to the meta-survey done by NCES (2006). Key findings from NCES
indicated an increase in school budgets and state funding to provide sufficient network and
technology access to teachers and students, as well as an increase in school programs
implementing a one-to-one technology program to ensure equitable access (Gray & Lewis,
2009). As a result, attention to barriers to technology integration has shifted to analyzing second-
order-barriers. Second-order barriers include teachers’ beliefs, practices, and training in relation
to technology-supported pedagogy. In contrast to first-order barriers, second-order barriers are
considered internal barriers because they lie within the context of teachers (Ertmer, 1999).
According to Cuban (2001), President Clinton made it explicit in 2000 that, even if technology
was fully accessible to all, it would not benefit students if they did not understand that access to
technology means access to the new economy. This statement emphasizes the importance of the
role of teachers to teach students the desired 21st-century skills to make them employable with
the new technologies. As Buckenmeyer (2010) stated, the current challenge with technology
integration is not getting the technology into the classroom but preparing those in the classroom
to use the technologies.
Teachers’ beliefs and practices. The barriers that confront schools and teachers are
closely aligned with teachers’ beliefs about the integration of technology in teaching and
learning practices (Hew & Brush, 2007). Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, and
Sendurur (2012) found that teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and lack of knowledge and skills
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 35
functioned as barriers to technology integration. Almost 20 years ago, Dwyer, Ringstaff, and
Sandholtz (1991) studied changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-rich
classrooms. They conducted a case study of 32 teachers and 650 students in a technology
integration program called Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT). The purpose of the study
was to examine the course of instructional change in relation to teachers’ beliefs and attitudes
about teaching and learning as a result of the ACOT program. Through interviews and classroom
observations, Dwyer et al. (1991) found that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward technology
integration changed when they recognized that the technological tools had a positive impact on
their students’ learning. The teachers also reported that their students had changed from a
competitive orientation to a collaborative orientation through the program. The key findings
from the study indicated that teachers who had a change in beliefs about instruction and learning
implemented instructional changes. More significantly, it was noted that teachers who had
changes in their beliefs had a long-term perspective on change, which allowed them to take risks
and face uncertainty. Similarly, Cuban (2001) found that teachers who were committed to
technology integration in their classrooms valued the importance of technology in their students’
future and were not intimidated in using technology with their students.
Since the study by Dwyer et al. (1991), more studies have examined the relationship
between teacher’ beliefs and practices. Dexter, Anderson, and Becker (1999) examined the
instructional use of computers by teachers, along with their perceptions of its impact on the
changes to their classroom practices. Results showed that teachers who had a more progressive
teaching approach reported that the use of computers had helped them to change. However,
computers were not identified as the catalyst for change; according to the teachers, the change
was due to the culture of the school, the classes taken, and their own reflection on experience.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 36
The implication of the study is that teachers need opportunities to develop pedagogical
knowledge in a supportive climate for the use of educational technology to be constructive.
Levin and Wadmany (2006) also studied teachers’ beliefs and practices and found that teachers’
educational beliefs had changed over the course of the three-year longitudinal study, some
containing multiple views and conflicting beliefs that influenced their teaching practices.
Consistent with the findings reported by Dwyer et al. (1999), it appears that teachers need
to change their beliefs in order to change their practice. Moreover, teachers’ beliefs about
learning and teaching have been found to be closely related to their technology integration
practices (Kasey, Kasey, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013). The findings from these studies
indicate that teachers’ beliefs should be taken into consideration when schools are planning to
integrate technology into their practices.
In contrast, Judson (2006) examined whether there was a parallel between teachers’
beliefs about instruction and their practices with technology. Different from prior studies that had
relied heavily on self-reported data from teachers, Judson used both surveys and observations.
Thirty-two teachers who were using technology in their classrooms were asked to complete a
survey that measured their beliefs about instruction and then they were directly observed using
the Focus on Integrated Technology: Classroom Observation Measurement (FIT:COM), which
measures the degree to which technology integration lessons are aligned with constructivist
principles. Judson found that, although most of the teachers reported strong constructivist beliefs
concerning teaching and learning, there was no significant relationship between practice and
beliefs, as the teachers failed to exhibit their beliefs and ideas in their practice. While Judson’s
(2006) research contradicts findings from other studies on the relationship between beliefs and
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 37
practices, it suggests an important question: Why did teachers not practice what they preached?
Did teachers not practice what they believed because they were not well trained?
Chen (2008) also found inconsistency between teachers’ expressed beliefs and practices.
Using a qualitative approach, a triangulation of interviews, classroom observations, and
document analysis (e.g., syllabi, lesson plans, handouts), Chen identified three categories of
factors that explained the inconsistency between the 12 participants’ reported beliefs and their
technology integration practices: (a) the influence of external factors, (b) teachers’ limited
understanding of constructivist instruction, and (c) teachers’ conflicting beliefs. The findings
reported by Judson (2006) and Chen (2008) highlight the factor of teachers’ training and
professional development as a possible reason for the inconsistency. This indicates a need for
further examination of teacher training to determine whether training is the underlying factor in
the relationship between belief and practice.
Teacher training. Teaching in what is considered the digital age of learning is
challenging for educators who do not have adequate knowledge, resources, and support. Ertmer
(2005) asserted that most teachers, whether novice or veterans, have limited understanding and
experience regarding how to integrate technology effectively to enhance teaching and facilitate
learning. Research suggests that teachers need professional development opportunities and
preparation that include access to the newest technological tools and interactive media, hands-on
training, and ongoing support in order to select, use, and integrate technology in their teaching
pedagogy (Aldhafeeri et al., 2016; Guskey, 2002; Palak & Walls, 2009). Aldhafeeri et al. (2016)
examined teachers’ attitudes and aptitudes toward technology use in their classrooms and the
extent to which the teachers were using technology to foster play-based learning. Findings
indicated that, while 96% of the teachers reported having a technology-rich classroom, 98%
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 38
indicated that they had not received any educational or professional training on technology
integration and 68% reported that they did not know how to integrate technology. These data
indicate that, while teachers had access to technology in the classroom, they lacked adequate
training and therefore were inept in integrating technology into their teaching pedagogy.
According to Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change, training is the most crucial factor
in the implementation of any new practice. Teacher training is the key element that sets off a
chain of reactions. According to the model, once teacher training is in place, teachers will try to
implement the new practice, which will lead to change in student learning outcomes; only when
teachers recognize a positive change in students’ outcome will teachers’ beliefs and attitudes to
the practice change. However, training does not stop after initial training. Guskey (2002)
emphasized the importance of ongoing training support for teachers to ensure a parallel between
teachers’ practice and beliefs.
Teachers need to learn how to evaluate the usefulness and functionality of various
technology tools and media content in relation to children’s cognitive, linguistic, physical, social,
and emotional needs to use it effectively as a teaching and learning tool (Matzen & Edmunds,
2007; Petriashvili, 2012). As with learning any new practice, the task of evaluating and
understanding technology can be intimidating for educators who are already concerned about
possible negative effects due to misuse or overuse of technological tools. An and Reigeluth
(2011) noted that, despite improved access to technology and training for teachers, technology
was still used mostly for communication and low-level tasks (e.g., word processing, drill-and-
practice, and exploring websites). Research on teachers’ training suggests that teachers need to
be competent in digital literacy so they are not using technology for the sake of technology but as
a way of supporting and enhancing children’s learning (Aldhafeeri et al., 2016; Ertmer, 2005;
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 39
Guskey, 2002). Competence can be defined as the teachers’ ability to align the technology use to
core pedagogical goals (An & Reigeluth, 2011).
Teacher resistance. Teacher resistance is a second-order barrier that has a major impact
on technology integration when resources, access, and training are all accounted for (Bingimlas,
2009; Ertmer et al., 2012; Orlando, 2014). Bingimlas (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of
literature on barriers associated with teachers’ technology integration and identified teachers’
resistance as one of the most prominent barriers. Findings illustrated that teachers’ resistance to
technology integration often stemmed from feeling intimidated, unknowledgeable, and/or
incompetent to integrate technology into the classroom (Bingimlas, 2009).
Ertmer et al. (2012) examined the relationship between teacher’s beliefs and practices in
multiple case study research. Twelve teachers were selected based on evidence from personal
and classroom websites indicating award-winning technology practices. In-depth document
analysis and one-on-one interviews indicated that the strongest barriers for these teachers were
internal barriers. Some teachers reported that their beliefs and attitudes toward technology use
and its value in learning made them initially resistant to technology integration. Similar to the
findings reported by Bingimlas (2009), teachers also reported that their lack of knowledge and
current skills impeded their ability to integrate technology effectively because they felt
intimidated by the technological tools (Ertmer et al., 2012).
Buckenmeyer (2010) examined the impact of professional development on teachers’ level
of technology use in the classroom. In that study, 144 high school teachers participated in
educational technology professional development and then were surveyed concerning their
attitudes and beliefs about professional development, available resources, technology, and
technology use. Buckenmeyer reported a significant correlation between professional
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 40
development and technology use. This indicates that teachers are more willing to use technology
when they have relevant professional development and experiences that make them feel
competent.
Orlando (2014) advanced the research on teacher resistance by examining veteran
teachers’ technology integration. Veteran teachers make up approximately 40% of teachers; their
resistance to integrate technology into their practices creates a large divide in the educational
technology movement. The key findings indicated that veteran teachers resisted technology
integration because they became aware of their lack of knowledge of technological tools and
educational technology. This lack of knowledge became an internal barrier because the teachers
reported choosing not to integrate technology due to their feeling of uncertainty to integrate it
and actually saw it as an obstacle to their current practice. Some teachers also reported that
technology was a political dilemma for them in the sense that they saw integrating technology as
taking them away from teaching curriculum content (Orlando, 2014).
Researchers have found that teachers resisted technology because they did not see its
value as a teaching and learning tool and did not feel competent to change their teaching
pedagogy in relation to technology integration. While Orlando’s (2014) study had a small sample
of four teachers who had been working for more than 20 years, it included a five-year
longitudinal examination. Moreover, the data were derived from various sources, including
teacher interviews, document analysis, classroom observations, student focus groups, interviews
with teaching colleagues, school planning documentation, and key school technology personnel
observations. Thus, while the study findings may not be generalizable, they provide an in-depth
analysis of teacher resistance and shed light on internal barriers faced by veteran teachers.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 41
Theoretical Framework
Through reviewing research on barriers to technology integration, it is evident that, while
first-order barriers have been relatively addressed, second-order barriers indicate the gap in
research concerning teachers’ pedagogy. Research on teachers’ resistance indicates that training
is needed to support teachers and change their beliefs about educational technology, especially
since teachers’ pedagogy or lack thereof has been the most frequently reported factor related to
resistance and the cause of feelings of incompetence and intimidation. This is a critical issue that
needs attention because, according to the U.S. Department of Education (2000), educators have
yet to integrate technology meaningfully in the majority of American classrooms.
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
Koehler and Mishra (2009) developed the TPACK theoretical framework for teacher
knowledge of technology integration. This framework consists of three knowledge components:
content, pedagogy, and technology. Koehler and Mishra asserted that the interaction among these
three components produces variation in technology integration among educators. Content
knowledge refers to teachers’ knowledge about the subject or content that is to be taught.
Pedagogical knowledge refers to teachers’ knowledge about the practices or methods of teaching
and learning. Technology knowledge refers to teachers’ digital literacy, along with an
understanding of how to apply it effectively and productively and to recognize when technology
can impede or assist learning. According to Koehler and Mishra (2009), when teachers have an
intersection of all three components, they will be able to integrate and use technology in a
meaningful manner. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) argued that technology integration
should not be seen as an isolated goal but rather in conjunction with pedagogical goals so that
technology integration becomes technology-enabled learning. Similarly, Valtonen et al. (2011)
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 42
argued that greater attention should be paid to teachers’ technological pedagogical knowledge
rather than to teachers’ ability to adopt and adapt technology in their practices.
Figure 1 illustrates the TPACK framework. A different-colored circle represents each
knowledge domain and the interactions among domains are shown in the overlapping of the
circles. In the middle section is an overlap of all three knowledge domains, known as the
TPACK. The blue dotted line circling the three knowledge domains represents the context
specifically unique to each TPACK. For instance, the TPACK of a teacher in a kindergarten
classroom at an urban school would be very different from that of a teacher in a kindergarten
classroom in a rural school. The current study examined five kindergarten teachers’ pedagogy
and perceptions by looking at the components that made up each teacher’s TPACK within an
urban school in a high-socioeconomic-status community. Isolating the knowledge components of
each teacher constituted a structured and coherent approach to examine the teachers’ pedagogy
and perceptions related to technology integration.
To understand the validity and progress of the TPACK measurement for effective
technology integration, Cavanagh and Koehler (2013) analyzed existing TPACK research using
the contemporary validity theory. Analysis of these studies suggested that, while the framework
had made a significant impact on research in education technology, the variation in techniques of
the TPACK measurement and lack of clarity about the purpose of measurement could limit the
framework’s reliability and validity. These flaws can be addressed if researchers take into
consideration evidence from external measures. For instance, when examining teachers’ TPACK
using self-reported instruments, researchers should triangulate the data collection methods to
overcome the limitations of self-report. Overall, the way in which teachers’ TPACK is measured
plays a vital role in the validity of the framework, particularly the degree to which the evidence
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 43

Figure 1. The Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework model
and its knowledge components. From “A Turn Toward Specifying Validity Criteria in the
Measurement of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK),” by R. F. Cavanagh
& M. J. Koehler, 2013, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 129-148.

supports interpretations of the data. Therefore, when the measurements and purpose of
measurement are aligned, the epistemology of the TPACK framework can serve as a strong,
coherent, and systematic approach to examine and understand teachers’ pedagogy related to
technology integration.
Conceptual Framework
The TPACK framework alone provides only an overview picture of teachers’ knowledge
components as they relate to their pedagogical practices. Other factors should be included in this
picture to reach a holistic understanding of teachers’ pedagogies and perceptions relating to the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 44
nature of technology use in the classroom. The conceptual model that guided this study combines
Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) TPACK framework and Gusky’s (2002) model of teacher change.
In that model, teachers’ training is identified as the most crucial factor in the implementation of
any new practice, as it sets off a chain of reaction on teachers’ beliefs, the TPACK, and students’
learning.
The body of research on second-order barriers indicates that teachers’ beliefs about
technology use and self-efficacy influence their pedagogical practice (An & Reigeluth, 2011;
Bingimlas, 2009; Orlando, 2014). Moreover, teacher training plays an important role in teachers’
beliefs and feelings of efficacy in using technology as a teaching tool (Buckenmeyer, 2010;
Ertmer, 2005; Guskey, 2002). Aldhafeeri et al. (2016) identified interplay between students’
achievement and teachers’ beliefs and practices. In that study, teachers changed their beliefs and
practices only when they noticed positive changes in their students’ learning. Applying Koehler
and Mishra’s (2009) notion that the TPACK is dependent on the context in which gaining of
knowledge takes place, these confounding factors are dependent on the context in which they are
situated. In this study, the context of each factor is placed within the perspective of the teacher.
Figure 2 illustrates the interplay among these three main factors identified in the model of
teacher change, along with the TPACK. Each factor in this conceptual model is situated within
its own context, which is represented by the blue dotted circle. The circle on the top represents
the TPACK, reflecting the teacher’s knowledge components. The TPACK of a teacher has a
direct influence on student achievement because what the teacher knows shapes the teaching
pedagogy. The red arrow represents the influence of the TPACK on student achievement. In
turn, when teachers notice changes in students’ achievement, whether positive or negative, their
beliefs about the teaching method and their own self-efficacy are influenced. Closing this loop is
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 45

Figure 2. Conceptual model combining the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) model with the Model of Teacher Change.

the influence of the teachers’ beliefs about their TPACK. Teachers’ belief in the practice in
which they were formally trained and their confidence in their abilities add to the their
knowledge components.
Incorporating the model of teacher change in this conceptual framework, teacher training
is identified as a key factor that influences the dynamic of the three components. Research
indicates that professional training on how to use and incorporate technology can provide
teachers knowledge that makes them feel more confident in their abilities (Guskey, 2002) and
this knowledge will add to their TPACK. Thus, the green arrows represent the reversal change
that occurs in the interplay of the three components. With teacher training in the picture, the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 46
influence of each component is reversed. Teacher training influences teachers’ knowledge,
which is the TPACK, and that change subsequently transforms the teachers’ belief about
teaching and learning, as well as their self-efficacy. When teachers’ beliefs change, the change is
often reflected in their behavior, thus influencing their students’ achievement. Changes in
students’ achievement will affirm or disaffirm teachers’ perceived knowledge; the cycle will
continue.
Overall, the main concept in this model is the interplay among these three factors that
serves as a repeating loop because each factor reinforces the others. For change to occur in
teacher’s beliefs and self-efficacy, there must be a notable change in the students’ learning, along
with the presence of teacher training. Likewise, changes in teachers’ TPACK will subsequently
create change in students’ achievement and thus reinforce the influence of each factor on the
others. Acknowledging the reinforcing interplay among these factors provides a holistic
approach to identifying and understanding the formation of teachers’ pedagogical practices and
perceptions of technology integration.
Chapter Summary
There is a saturation of research on technology integration in the education system, all of
which seeks to present evidence and explanations related to the issues of such phenomena. The
literature review in this chapter examined the history of technology integration, specifically
related to elementary schools and 21st-century skills. It is evident that technology integration
was established through a top-down approach through pressure from the economy to the state,
then to communities and schools. Teachers’ lack of involvement and buy-in throughout the
process led to a discrepancy in actual technology integration and use in classrooms (Cuban,
2001). This review of the literature identified and analyzed barriers that are closely aligned with
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 47
the four goals set out by President Clinton in 2000. Research indicates two pertinent categories
of barriers: first-order barriers and second-order barriers (Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, 2007). A
review of the body of research on each category indicates that, within the past 30 years, there has
been much progress in addressing the first-order barriers, such as access and resources (NCES,
2006). Subsequently, research efforts have moved to addressing the second-order barriers. While
there is contradicting research on the relationship between teacher’s beliefs and practices (Chen,
2008; Judson, 2006; Kasey et al., 2013; Levin & Wadmany, 2006), evidence from both sides
highlights the need to examine teachers’ pedagogy because it serves as an important component
in teachers’ resistance. Furthermore, researchers agree that ongoing professional development for
teachers is needed to assist veteran and novice teachers to integrate technology meaningfully
(Aldhafeeri et al., 2016; Ertmer, 2005; Guskey, 2002). Based on this review, Koehler and
Mishra’s (2009) TPACK framework and Gusky’s (2002) model of teacher change were utilized
in this study to examine teachers’ pedagogical practices and perceptions in order to provide
insight into the formation of teachers’ pedagogical practices and rationale guiding technology
integration.
This case study was designed to identify teachers’ pedagogy and perceptions related to
technology integration in a technology-rich elementary school using the TPACK framework and
the model of teacher change. Given the importance of teachers’ pedagogy in effective teaching
and positive learning outcomes, the findings in this study can provide insight into pedagogical
practices that are closely aligned with technology integration. The focus of this case study was
on the pedagogies and practices of kindergarten teachers because, as Cuban (2001) argued,
technology integration in the early years of schooling should be investigated at the entry point of
education. This study examined teachers’ pedagogy guiding technology integration in the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 48
kindergarten classroom, where the population of young children is most vulnerable to the effects
of technology usage (Cuban, 2001; Uçar, 2015). Findings from this study can describe the
relationship between teachers’ perceptions and pedagogical practices and provide a context to
understand the nature of technological integration in the classrooms of young children.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 49
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
This chapter describes the research methods that guided the study. First, a restatement of
the study’s purpose and the research questions are presented. Second, to understand the study’s
methods, a rationale for the choice of an explanatory sequential approach and the theoretical
framework are presented. Following is a discussion of the setting for the study and the selection
criteria for participants. Next, the data collection approach and the approach for data analysis are
discussed. The chapter ends with a review of ethical considerations and credibility relevant to the
study.
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this case study was to examine kindergarten teachers’ technology
integration related to teaching pedagogies and beliefs about technology integration. The analysis
focuses on understanding the kindergarten teachers’ pedagogical practices, perceptions of
educational technology, and perceived knowledge of technology. Three research questions
guided the:
1. What are kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in their
pedagogical practices at?
2. What is the nature of technology use in kindergarten teachers’ pedagogy?
3. What is the relationship between, teachers’ beliefs, practices, and perceived knowledge
of educational technology?
Research Design
The research purpose of this study was to understand kindergarten teachers’ pedagogies
and perceptions related to technology integration and how those perceptions are evident in their
practice at a school with high student achievement and high technology use in the district.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 50
Surveys, interviews, and observations were used to explore the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
to understand the reasoning behind each teacher’s practice. The methods are described as they
relate to the three research questions and the purpose of the study.
The purpose of qualitative research is to understand how people interpret their
experiences and what meanings they attribute to those experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In
contrast, the purpose of quantitative research is to find correlations and examine the relationships
between various variables (Creswell, 2014). The purpose of this study was to understand the
perceptions and pedagogical practices of kindergarten teachers in relation to technology
integration, as well as to examine the relationship between the teachers’ perceptions and practice.
Hence, the use of a case study allowed for inductive investigation where the research purpose is
to search for understanding of a phenomenon and focus on the processes and descriptive data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, case studies help to answer how something occurs in a
particular setting among specific individuals (Maxwell, 2013). Specifically, this case study took
an explanatory sequential approach in which surveys were used first to collect quantitative data
for analysis, followed by observations and interviews to collect qualitative data for analysis
(Creswell, 2014). This approach provided descriptive data on the formation and relationships
among teachers’ beliefs, practices, and perceived knowledge.
Site and Setting
In this case study, a purposeful and selective sampling approach was used to select a
district and elementary schools within the district because the target population was kindergarten
teachers. A funnel sampling approach was used to ensure that, while all schools would be given
an equal chance to participate, the specific criteria narrowed the search to schools that best
matched the purpose of the study. First, I conducted an online search of all districts in southern
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 51
California that were recognized for technology use and/or integration. This technology use
criterion was important for the study because, in order to understand how teachers use
technology and what they think of technology in their practice, it was important to choose
schools that actually used technology. The technology use criterion provided certainty that
teachers’ pedagogical practices related to technology integration could be studied at the school.
This broad search using the technology criterion narrowed the field to a few districts. After a
thorough examination of each district’s official website for evidence of technology integration, I
used data from the California Department of Education DataQuest tool to look at each district’s
student achievement statistics. The intentionality behind a high student achievement criterion
was related to the assumption that, if teachers were integrating technology effectively and
meaningfully, there would be some evidence in their students’ achievement.
SUSD met the technology integration and high student achievement criteria and was
therefore selected. Next, I reviewed each elementary school in the district, examining each
school’s website and mission statement. Hiro Elementary and Bear Elementary were selected
based on the selection criteria used for selecting the district. Focusing on only two schools
allowed an in-depth inquiry approach to study kindergarten teachers in enriched technology
schools with a consistent history of high student achievement. There are five kindergarten
classrooms at Hiro and seven transitional kindergarten or kindergarten classrooms at Bear. The
setting for observations was the classrooms of each kindergarten teacher to allow for a
naturalistic inquiry approach. Observing teachers in the classrooms as they utilize and
incorporate technology into their teaching pedagogy helped to address the question, “What is the
nature of technology use in kindergarten teachers’ pedagogy at Hiro Elementary?”
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 52
Entry to the school sites and access to the teachers and classrooms were obtained through
permission from the district superintendent. Once approval was granted, the district’s Director of
Research, Assessment, and Evaluation was contacted for permission to study the schools after
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was granted. The principals of the schools were also
contacted via email to gain entry to the school and access to the teachers. With help from the
district’s instructional coach, all kindergarten teachers were asked whether they were willing to
participate in the case study; five teachers volunteered, four from Hiro and one from Bear. Once
IRB approval was granted, I contacted the district’s Director of Elementary Education for
clearance to begin the study. My initial contact with the teachers was gained with help from the
principal and instructional coach at each school. Once the teachers gave consent to participate,
they were sent via email a Google document for dates and times to be interviewed and observed.
Participants
Purposeful and selective sampling methods were used to select the teachers. My research
interest is in early childhood education because the first five years of life are especially important
for the development of the child’s brain. Neuroscience research confirms that early experiences
provide the foundation for shaping the child’s brain architecture and functioning throughout life
(Immordino-Yang, 2011). For this study, I was interested in exploring the technological
pedagogies of teachers working with young children because, as Immordino-Yang (2011) stated,
children’s early experiences shape their later cognitive learning (Daim, Rueda, Martin, &
Gerdsri, 2006). Due to the divided stance on whether technology should be used in the classroom
with young children (Anderson & Pempek, 2005; Rideout et al., 2003; Ucar, 2015), many early
childhood education schools do not use technology. Therefore, kindergarten teachers were
purposefully selected because they work with young children and serve as the access point to the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 53
education system. How technology is used early on as a learning tool influences how children
will use technology later. All five kindergarten teachers in this study were females between the
ages of 26 and 35 years. Four of the five had a Masters’ degree and had been working at their
school for up to five years but had been teaching kindergarten for more than five years. The two
main criteria for participant selection were experienced kindergarten teachers and teachers who
had used technology in their pedagogical practice for more than two years. The reasoning behind
the experience criterion was to ensure that the teachers already had some experience with
technology in order to go in depth in this case study of teachers’ perceptions and practices with
technology integration.
Data Collection
According to Weiss (1994), the relationship between the interviewer and the respondent
must be collaborative in order to produce useful information. Thus, the interviewer must treat the
respondent as the expert and respect the respondent’s integrity by not questioning choices. For
this study, each kindergarten teacher was asked for her availability for the observation and
interviews. The time and date were dependent on what was most convenient for the teachers. The
first part of the data collection was distributing the survey using a link via email to all
kindergarten teachers in Hiro and Bear schools. A deadline of two weeks from when the survey
was distributed was given to ensure a timely and prompt response rate, resulting in an 83%
response rate. Once surveys were completed, observation dates and times were scheduled with
the teachers who had volunteered to participate. The interviews were scheduled following
completion of the observations. Each interview was allotted approximately one hour and took
place either at the school in a private conference room or a quiet location of convenience to the
teacher. Notes and direct quotes were taken during each interview, using a laptop to allow for
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 54
descriptive and detailed data that could be used to ask follow-up questions (Patton, 2002). All
participating teachers were asked to grant permission to voice record the interviews so
transcriptions could be typed to allow for in-depth analysis and direct quoting. This triangulation
of data collection ensured that the data could be cross-referenced to provide a holistic picture of
the data. Hence, a mixed methods approach was used for data collection and an explanatory
sequential approach was used for data analysis. The presentation of the data collection methods
is arranged in order in which they took place: first surveys, then observations, and ending with
interviews.
Survey
In explanatory sequential mixed methods approaches, the quantitative data collection
method is conducted first, followed by qualitative methods, with the purpose of using the
qualitative data to explain the quantitative data (Creswell, 2014). A survey, which can be used
for quantitative purposes, was used in this case study to obtain descriptive data about the
relationships among teachers’ beliefs, practices, and perceived knowledge. The survey also
retrieved information about the teachers’ demographics and beliefs about the topic of technology
and instruction. The survey consisted of 21 closed-ended questions and statements that served as
a measure of commonalities in teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about technology integration,
student learning, teacher training and teaching pedagogies. The survey predominately used a
five-point Likert-type scale: strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree,
somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree. Many of the questions focused on teachers’ beliefs
and perceptions, such as, “I believe technology can improve students’ motivation and
engagement” and “I feel confident using technology in my daily lessons.” The data from the
survey provided quantifiable frequencies of responses that were used for cross-comparisons
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 55
between participants and provided insight to understand any patterns or relationships in how
teachers felt about certain topics related to technology integration.
The intention behind using a quantitative survey method before the qualitative method is
to ensure that all teachers’ demographic information can be obtained easily and that they can
respond comfortably to the same set of statements that focus on their aptitudes and attitudes
toward teaching and technology. The survey required approximately 15 to 25 minutes to
complete. For efficiency and ease, the teachers received a link to the survey using the
Qualtrics™ application. The online survey was appropriate for this case study because it
provided confidentiality to the participants, minimized the cost of data collection, and made data
analysis convenient and manageable.
Observations
Observations provide detailed descriptions in a first-hand account of what actually
happens in specific contexts and situations and allow the researcher to see the participants in
their natural settings (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, observations
allowed for first-hand encounters to see how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were reflected in their
teaching practices in the classroom setting. Compared to the survey and interview protocols, the
observation protocol took a less structured approach because the purpose of observations is to
“capture the slice of life” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 120). For this study, observations were
used to capture objective details of kindergarten teachers in the act of integrating and/or utilizing
technology in their practice. Each teacher was observed twice for one hour in her classroom
focusing on a lesson or curriculum during at least part of that time. Ten hours of observations
were recorded. Table 1 details the logistics of the observations of the five participants.
Information about each participant is arranged by the order in which data were collected.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 56
The students in the classroom were not the focus of this study. The observation protocol
focused on the lead kindergarten teacher in the one-hour observation as she conducted her lesson
Table 1

Observations

Site Time of observation Participants Length of observation

Hiro 8:30-9:30 am & 11:45am-12:45 pm
(same day)
Mrs. Frankie, her
assistant teacher, and 18
students
Two @ 60 minutes
Hiro 9:30-10:30 am & 12:15-1:15 pm
(2 separate days)
Mrs. Kasey, her assistant
teacher, and 19 students
Two @ 60 minutes
Bear 11:45 am-12:45 pm & 8:30-9:30 am
(2 separate days)
Mrs. Emma, her assistant
teacher, and 22 students
Two @ 60 minutes
Hiro 8:30-9:30 am & 11:45 am-12:45 pm
(same day)
Mrs. Leah, her assistant
teacher, and 16 students
Two @ 60 minutes
Hiro 9:30-10:30 am & 12:15-1:15pm
(2 separate days)
Mrs. Ryan and 12
students
Two @ 60 minutes

to look for pedagogical practices related to technology integration and to observe the nature in
which technology was used for teaching and facilitating learning. Before shadowing the teacher,
a descriptive observation of the classroom and socio-environmental factors was recorded to
provide a clear context of the environment and a context for understanding where technology
integration was most evident in the classroom and under what circumstances. This element was
important to account for because understanding the context of where and how technology was
integrated helped to address the research questions regarding the teachers’ perceptions of
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 57
technology integration in their pedagogical practices and the nature of technology use in the
teachers’ pedagogy.
The protocol for each observation was first to greet the teacher and establish the role of
the researcher’s: to be a complete observer, shadowing the teacher. Notes were documented in
the observation protocol using paper and pencil; observer comments were documented afterward.
Communication and interaction with the students were kept to a minimum in order to be as
nondisruptive to the classroom environment as possible (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). All students
were given the same response when they asked about my presence in the classroom: “I’m here to
watch your teacher and take notes on what she is doing.” All observations were purposely
conducted during a lesson’s allotted time so that the teachers’ technology integration practices
could be observed. Correspondingly, the purpose of each observation was to represent a first-
hand encounter with the phenomenon of interest (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)—in this case, how
the teacher’s pedagogical beliefs were evident in classroom practice. Conducting two separate
one-hour observations provided a more holistic snapshot of what happened in the classroom.
Interviews
As Weiss (1994) highlighted, interviews allow for the development of detailed
descriptions, integration of multiple perspectives, description of process, and understanding of
how events are interpreted. The purpose of interviewing teachers in this study was to obtain
descriptions of what the teachers thought about teaching, learning, and technological tools, in
addition to their beliefs about how technology integration influences their practice.
Given the nature of an explanatory sequential approach, the interviews in this study
provide information to explain data from the survey and observations. The intentionality behind
the interview occurring after the observations and surveys was for the teachers to provide insight
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 58
into their pedagogical beliefs, their perceptions about technology integration, and their practice
as it happened. The in-depth interviews required that the teachers explain their beliefs and
practice, which involved at least one hour per interview.
The interview protocol consisted of a set of 17 standardized open-ended questions, with
some prompting questions when necessary. The interview protocol included an introduction to
inform participants of the purpose of the study, followed by the questions and concluded with a
short expression of appreciation for the participant’s time. Each participant was asked the
questions in the same order. This standardized open-ended approach was used to minimize
variation in the questions posed to the participants, which made data analysis more efficient and
helped to minimize researcher bias (Patton, 2002). Moreover, this approach allowed for effective
management of time, eliminating in advance issues to be explored and keeping the interactions
focused while allowing for individual perspectives to emerge (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Approximately five hours of interviews were conducted. Table 2 details information about the
interviews.

Table 2

Interviews

Years at Years as a Length of
Participants the school kindergarten teacher School interview

Mrs. Frankie 7 7 Hiro 60 minutes
Ms. Kasey 8 15 Hiro 55 minutes
Ms. Emma 5 20 Bear 60 minutes
Ms. Leah 6 16 Hiro 60 minutes
Ms. Ryan 5 8 Hiro 50 minutes

TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 59
The interview questions in the protocol were categorized according to the three
knowledge components of the TPACK framework: technological knowledge, content
knowledge, and pedagogy knowledge. This procedure ensured that the data collection process
would address the purpose of the protocol, which was to understand the teachers’ pedagogy in
the three knowledge domains. The interview questions were centered on three types of questions
from Patton’s (2002) list of six types of interview questions. First, opinions and values questions
were asked to understand the cognitive and interpretative process of how the teachers felt about
technology and how they believed technology should be integrated into teaching practices.
Second, behavior questions were asked to elicit the teachers’ perceptions of their experiences in
integrating technology into their curriculum. Third, knowledge questions were asked to learn
about each teacher’s pedagogical beliefs and perceptions within the three components of the
TPACK.
Data Analysis
In an explanatory sequential approach, data analysis is the process of making sense of
data by using qualitative data to explain quantitative data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thus, the
goal of the data analysis process in this study was to make meaning of the data and identify
emergent themes, rather than to find correlations among variables. Creswell’s (2014) six steps
for data analysis were used as a systematic approach. First, I prepared all data for analysis by
graphing the survey responses, transcribing interviews, and typing field notes from the
observations. Once each set of data was prepared, it was organized to align with the appropriate
teacher. Next, I analyzed the data set by depth, credibility, and meaning. The third step was
coding. Two cycles of coding were used for the interviews, observations, and survey data. The
first cycle consisted of scanning each interview and observation record separately for segments
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 60
of data that could be coded, as well as a priori codes, which are concepts from prior literature
(Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). The same code key legend was then used for data from
observations and interviews. These codes focused on the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, practice,
and perceptions related to technology integration. Patterns or frequencies in the survey responses
were explained using the emergent codes found in the qualitative data. The fourth step was the
second cycle of coding. Sets of data were grouped into emergent or a priori codes and then into
smaller categories to identify patterns to conduct comparative analysis of interviews,
observations, and survey responses.
The purpose of this case study was to understand teachers’ pedagogy and perceptions
relating to technology integration. Thus, constant comparisons of what each teacher said, what
was observed of each teacher, and what was evident in the documents allowed for differentiation
of one pedagogy or theme from another (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The fifth step was to finalize
the identified themes for a descriptive narrative and identify commonalities or differences among
the five teachers. The sixth and final step was to use the themes to build a micro-level theory for
understanding teachers’ pedagogy and perceptions regarding technology integration.
Ethical Considerations
The purpose and process of the study were made clear to the teachers to ensure that the
study would be conducted ethically. This case study underwent University of Southern
California IRB examination to obtain approval. The IRB process ensured that appropriate steps
were taken to protect the rights and welfare of the participants. In addition, several factors were
taken into consideration by following Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) ethical issues checklist.
Teachers’ identities were concealed, using pseudonyms, and identifiable information was
omitted to ensure that there would not be any trail leading back to a teacher or school. Moreover,
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 61
it was made clear to the teachers and the schools that the purpose of the study was to understand
teachers’ pedagogy related to technology integration rather than to make judgments. Hence, to
certify that this study was done ethically, all teachers were asked for consent to be observed and
interviewed. The teachers were assured that, if for any reason they were uncomfortable with the
study, they would be able to withdraw without consequence. Observations were done
unobtrusively and teachers were involved in the planning of the day and time of observation and
interview. The findings of the study do not result in harm to the personal or professional status of
any teacher, as the purpose was not to judge the teachers. All teachers’ identities were kept
confidential.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Validity in qualitative research depends on the relationship of the study’s conclusion to
reality (Maxwell, 2013). In this sense, reality is what teachers actually do in the classroom. To
ensure credibility and trustworthiness of this case study’s findings, the strategy of triangulation
was used to allow a cross-reference check of data. Observations were used in addition to
interviews and a survey to ensure that what the teachers said they did actually occurred in the
classroom. This cross-reference check for each participant provided first-hand and second-hand
accounts of the teachers’ pedagogy and perceptions, which allowed for constant comparative
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 62
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
This chapter reports the data collected from five kindergarten teachers in SUSD via the
survey, interviews, and observations and the interpretation of those data. The focus of this case
study was the pedagogies and perceptions relating to technology integration of five kindergarten
teachers in a high-technology-use and high-achieving school district. First, teachers shared their
perceptions and beliefs about technology for teaching and learning by responding to an online
survey. Then, each teacher was observed twice for one hour each time during an instructional
period when the teacher was integrating technology into practice. Finally, interviews were
conducted with each teacher to obtain descriptive, in-depth data on the pedagogies guiding
technology integration, the teachers’ perceptions of technology as an educational tool, and the
teachers’ beliefs regarding the impact of technology on teaching and learning. Data from these
sources were analyzed together for each participant, using the same code legend, to allow for a
holistic representation of each teacher’s pedagogy and perceptions. The findings are presented in
three sections to address each of the research questions guiding this study:
1. What are kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in their
pedagogical practices?
2. What is the nature of technology use in kindergarten teachers’ pedagogy?
3. What is the relationship, if any, between teachers’ beliefs, practices, and perceived
knowledge of educational technology?
This chapter concludes with themes that emerged from a cross-participant analysis.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, What are kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of technology
integration in their pedagogical practices? The question was answered using quantitative data
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 63
from the survey and qualitative data from the interviews and observations. All teachers from
Hiro and Bear schools were emailed an introduction to the study and invited to complete an
online survey about their beliefs and perceptions regarding technology integration. After a two-
week deadline and two friendly reminders, there was an 83% response rate. Following the survey
were observations and interviews with five teachers who volunteered to take part in the case
study. The interviews contained questions designed to understand the teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs and practices. The data were analyzed first separately by research type—quantitative
versus qualitative. Then the qualitative data were applied as explanations and supporting
evidence for common themes found in the survey responses. The following section presents the
findings for all kindergarten teachers at Bear and Hiro schools and then reports the data for the
five participants in the case study.
Positive Perceptions of Technology on Teaching and Learning
When asked about their perception of technology’s impact on teaching and learning, 86%
of the 16 teachers reported that they believed the presence of technology could improve teaching,
which indicates a high proportion of teachers with positive beliefs about technology integration.
This belief is mirrored in the teachers’ responses regarding the positive impact of technology on
students’ learning. 13 of the 16 teachers believed that technology can improve students’ learning
and 15 teachers believed that technology could improve students’ engagement and motivation.
Figure 3 illustrates the number of teachers who shared this positive perceptive of technology’s
impact on their students’ learning, particularly with motivation and engagement.
Three of the survey questions asked teachers about their beliefs of technology’s impact
on teaching, learning, and students’ motivation and engagement, on a 5-point Likert-type scale
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 64
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Figure 3 below depicts the responses from
questions 16 through 18 in a clustered bar chart.
Figure 3. Teachers’ beliefs about technology’s impact on teaching, learning, motivation, and
engagement.

The x-axis represents the number of responses by percentage and the y-axis represents the five
Likert-type scale items. Question 16 asked whether teachers believed technology could improve
teaching, which is represented by the blue bar. Question 17 asked whether teachers believed
technology could improve students’ learning, which is represented by the red bar. Lastly,
question 18 asked whether teachers believed technology could improve students’ motivation and
engagement, which is represented by the green bar. It should be noted that the premise of these
questions was not to evaluate the impact of technology on teaching, learning, motivation and
engagement but rather it was to assess teachers’ beliefs on the perceived impact of technology
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 65
based on their experiences. Responses across all three questions indicate that a majority of the
teachers at these two high-technology use schools had positive beliefs about using technology as
a teaching and learning tool. This indicates an alignment between what teachers believe and what
they practice.
The following section focuses on each teacher as she explained her pedagogical beliefs
and practices related to technology integration.
Teacher 1
Mrs. Ryan is a kindergarten teacher at Hiro school. She has a Master’s degree in
educational technology and has been teaching kindergarten for eight years and has been
integrating technology into her daily lessons for almost five years. She stated that the best
environment for student learning is one that is nurturing yet structured. Her philosophy for
teaching is to create a relationship with each student so the student feels safe and cared for. She
believes this will enable the student to learn. Her goal for technology integration is to provide her
students “with experiences that will allow them to be relatable to other children growing up in a
technology-savvy society” and to develop the skills needed for the current time. In this case,
Mrs. Ryan said that the current time is heavily invested in technology and therefore she wants
her students to have exposure to become part of the in-group. While Mrs. Ryan stated that she
feels confident in using technology, she did not consider herself to be an expert because
technology is always changing and there is so much “out there” that she has yet to experience.
Pedagogical beliefs. Mrs. Ryan stated that the important elements in teaching effectively
at a technology-rich school are knowledge of technology, content, and pedagogy. She was
among the many teachers who expressed positive beliefs about the impact of technology on
teaching and learning and stated that it can be integrated into any curriculum. She emphasized
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 66
that technology can improve teaching, learning, and students’ motivation and engagement. While
Mrs. Ryan reported feeling confident in using technology as a teaching tool, she noted that
teachers do not need to be experts in technology in order to use it for teaching. She advocated
that teachers needed to do their research on what application to use and become familiar with the
basic technical skills. She stated that, to facilitate students’ learning, teachers must have an
engaging curriculum. She noted that technology integrated into the curriculum makes learning
more engaging for her students. When asked about the benefits of integrating technology, she
responded, “I think the benefits are getting the students engaged, and it’s a great assessment tool,
it also allows us to connect with the families with all the apps and the apps with games have lets
the kids practice their skills.” This indicates that Mrs. Ryan sees technology integration as
beneficial to her pedagogical practice and her students’ learning.
Pedagogical practices. Mrs. Ryan’s pedagogical beliefs could be seen in her practice.
She strongly supported the positive impact technology usage and uses it frequently. When asked
how often she uses technology, she stated that she always uses technology during her lesson time
and that her students have frequent opportunities to use technology. In her classroom, she has
hardware such as a computer, iPads, an Apple TV, a smart board, and document camera. For
software, she and her students use educational applications such as Microsoft Word and Lexia.
Based on observations, Mrs. Ryan uses technology as a tool to make teaching more efficient and
as an extra resource for the students to further their learning. This includes educational
applications that allow students to learn mathematical and literacy concepts through short games
and stories. In one activity, the students started with an arts and crafts project and finished by
learning how to use the camera application on the iPad to take a picture of their creation. Once
Mrs. Ryan had checked the students’ pictures, each student posted his or her picture on an
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 67
application called Seesaw, which allowed parents to see the picture. Mrs. Ryan also broadcasted
each student’s picture onto the smartboard and showed a live feed of the Seesaw application so
that, when parents commented on the picture, the student was immediately alerted. This practice
of using technology as a tool to showcase students’ work, to provide instant feedback, and to
communicate with parents demonstrates Mrs. Ryan’s pedagogical beliefs and practice of
integrating technology to enrich the students’ learning experience.
Teacher 2
Mrs. Kasey is a Kindergarten teacher at Hiro school. She has a Master’s degree and has
taught for 15 years, including 14 years in the kindergarten classroom. Mrs. Kasey has integrated
technology into her daily lessons for more than five years and agrees that technology can
improve students’ learning, engagement, and motivation. Similar to Mrs. Ryan, Mrs. Kasey
stated that she feels confident in using technology, and thus uses it frequently in her classroom.
Mrs. Kasey stated that the best environment for student learning is one with small class sizes in
which students feel safe and are engaged. She sees her role as a coach who facilitates students’
learning by exposing them to experiences and giving them opportunities to explore their
interests. Her approach to teaching is to make the students “feel empowered by learning” and to
recognize that every student has a personal best.
Pedagogical beliefs. Mrs. Kasey admitted that, in the past 15 years, her pedagogical
beliefs have changed quite a bit. She stated that, when she first became a teacher, she believed
that her role was to teach students what they needed to know in order to meet standards. In other
words, she believed that her role was to teach to the test by the book. However, with more
experience, she advocates supporting her students’ growth by taking into account their interests.
She no longer feels the need to teach by the book and is more flexible in her teaching approach,
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 68
knowing that if she provides students with experiences that relate to their interests, they will be
more engaged and will arrive at the same endpoint. Mrs. Kasey stated that knowledge of
technology, content, and pedagogy is needed to integrate technology into teaching and learning
practices. When asked whether she believes that technology can hinder learning, she strongly
disagreed. She explained that in her experience technology has not hindered her students’
learning, as she sees “every moment as a learning opportunity.” She noted that technology can be
integrated into any lesson plan or content and can improve students’ engagement and motivation
to learn. When asked about the role of technology in her teaching, she stated, “It’s part of
everything we do. We live in a technology world and it is huge in our day-to-day operation.” In
analyzing her responses to the survey and interviews, it is clear that Mrs. Kasey has a strong
pedagogical belief in the positive impact of technology.
Pedagogical practices. Through the observations, it appeared that Mrs. Kasey’s positive
beliefs translated into practice. She stated that she uses technology in her classroom frequently
and that her students have frequent opportunities to use technology as a learning tool. The
technological hardware observed in her classroom included laptops, iPads, a document camera, a
smartboard, an Apply TV, and a cellular telephone. The software applications included
Microsoft Office Suite, Apple apps such as Pages, Numbers, and Keynote and learning websites
such as ABC Mouse, Seesaw, ST Math, and Lexia Core. During the observations, this hardware
and software were used either to facilitate her teaching or to expand the students’ learning. She
used the smartboard to give instructions for an activity to the whole class. The students used
iPads to create a mathematics- and art-related project. Thus, technology in this context was a tool
for teaching and learning. Mrs. Kasey stated that she tries to use technology when she can and
across all subject areas so that it is fully integrated into her day-to-day classroom operations. She
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 69
contended that using technology can make teaching easier and can provide an enriching
experience for students because it allows for more possibilities. She brought up a very interesting
perspective when she said that using technology allows differentiation among her students
because it lets them demonstrate their learning in different ways through the projects that they
create with the various applications on the iPad. Overall, Mrs. Kasey demonstrated a pedagogical
belief in technology integration and carried out her beliefs in her practice.
Teacher 3
Mrs. Leah is an experienced teacher at Hiro school. She has been teaching kindergarten
for more than 16 years and integrating technology in her classroom for about five years, which is
the same amount of time she has been working at Hiro. Along with her years of teaching
experience, Mrs. Leah has a Master’s degree in educational technology. She sees her teacher role
as a facilitator who fosters learning experiences and encourages students to learn. When asked
whether she feels confident in using technology in her daily lessons, she stated that she strongly
agrees and that she uses technology frequently. Her pedagogical beliefs and practice are similar
to those of the other kindergarten teachers in the sense that they all have strong positive beliefs
about the impact of technology on teaching and learning. Mrs. Leah stated that she provides
frequent opportunities for her students to use technology. When asked what environment is best
suited for student learning, she described “an environment that is student-centered, with active
engagement and open opportunities for kids to practice skills concretely.” Mrs. Leah explained
that she is fond of integrating technology into her classroom because “it engages the students and
the educational applications provides the students with hands on activities with instant feedback
that keeps them motivated.” Overall, she described her teaching approach as one to create an
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 70
environment where students feel safe to take risks and know that it is acceptable to make
mistakes.
Pedagogical beliefs. Mrs. Leah agrees with the kindergarten teachers in this case study
who strongly agree that technology can improve students’ learning, engagement, and motivation,
as well as teachers’ teaching practices. She said that the key elements in integrating technology
into the classroom effectively are knowledge of content, knowledge of technology, and
knowledge of pedagogy. However, she differed from Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. Kasey in her position
that one does need to be an expert in technology in order to use technology for teaching. She
explains that teachers not only need to know the curriculum and how to teach to different
learners but also should have technical skills for using technology for teaching. Mrs. Leah stated
that teachers should “have a sound base of what they are teaching.” She reported that she feels
confident in using technology in her daily lessons and strongly agreed that her education and
professional development have prepared her to integrate technology into her teaching. Compared
to the 57% of teachers who reported in the survey that their educational background had not
prepared them to integrate technology, Mrs. Leah reported that she felt prepared because she had
mastered the subject in educational technology. She stated that her pedagogical beliefs have not
changed over the years, but that her practice has changed to be more adaptive to the current times
and to the increase in technology use. Her goal for technology integration is to “utilize
technology where it is meaningful and students can show their learning in different ways.” This
goal was observed in action when Mrs. Leah had her students complete four activities, each of
which involved using technology in various ways either to showcase their learning or to enrich
their learning through educational applications.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 71
Pedagogical practices. Mrs. Leah stated that she and her students use technology in the
classroom frequently. In the observation, Mrs. Leah used the smartboard to project from her
computer screen the four activities that the students would work on in their small groups. Each
student had a personal iPad that is carried to each activity and used in various ways. One group
used the iPad to record themselves reading a poem and acting out the movements. Another group
used the iPad to take a picture of a drawing of themselves and then recorded their voices talking
about themselves. The third group used the iPad to document their literacy activity. The fourth
group used an application on the iPad called JiJi, which is an educational mathematics
application in which students solve mathematics problems through problem-solving games.
Similar to the other kindergarten teachers, Mrs. Leah had software for the students that provided
extra resources to learn various content, such as Microsoft Word, Kahoot, Class Dojo, Seesaw,
and ABC Mouse. Most of these are educational applications or websites that provide activities in
various academic content while allowing teachers to keep track of their students’ activities.
Throughout the observations, Mrs. Leah and her students used technology as a resourceful tool
rather than as a topic of its own.
Teacher 4
Mrs. Frankie is a kindergarten teacher at Hiro school. She is a veteran teacher who has
been teaching for 12 years, seven of those years in the kindergarten classroom. She holds a
Master’s degree. She has been integrating technology in her classroom for almost five years and
reported that she felt confident in her technology skills and knowledge. She stated that the
important elements needed in teaching are having a strong knowledge of the content and a strong
knowledge of the pedagogy. She said that the best environment for student learning is a “student-
centered environment where the students are what drive the instructions and not a test.” She sees
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 72
her role of a teacher more as a facilitator than as an instructor. While she admitted that she
initiates the projects, the topics for the projects are based on the students’ interest because “it
gives the students more buy-in in their education and gets them more engaged.” Her teaching
approach is to blend the content areas seamlessly so that every project has elements of reading,
writing, and mathematics. Mrs. Frankie described a unique practice: “I always confer with each
student and know where they are at.” In doing so, she knows the needs and interests of each
student and bases her curriculum planning on that knowledge. Overall, she maintained that
technology in the classroom does not replace her teaching but enhances learning.
Pedagogical beliefs. Mrs. Frankie strongly stated that the presence of technology can
improve teaching and learning as well as students’ motivation and engagement. She said that
technology can be integrated into any lesson plan or curriculum. While she expressed positive
beliefs about the use of technology in education, she also noted that technology can hinder
students’ learning when it is not properly monitored or it is used without purpose. When asked
whether her educational or professional development had prepared her to integrate technology,
Mrs. Frankie, similar to a majority of the teachers in this case study, stated that her education had
not prepared her but her professional development had. She stated that her pedagogical beliefs
had changed in her 12 years of teaching. She explained that, at the beginning of her career, her
teaching was “driven by the book,” referring to the Common Core Standards and district lesson
plans. However, her beliefs have changed to focus on her students and to ensure that she is
fostering their creativity and collaborative and communication skills. When asked what had
changed her beliefs, she replied that she had joined “a mentorship that greatly influenced” her
perspective on teaching and students’ learning. She stated that now she uses her words very
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 73
purposefully, praises her students based on their abilities, and tries to foster a growth mindset in
her students.
Pedagogical practices. Mrs. Frankie’s positive beliefs about technology usage and
emphasis on a student-centered approach were apparent in her practice. She stated that she uses
technology frequently in her teaching and that her students frequently have opportunities to use
technology. In the observations, there was one computer for the teacher, iPads for the students, a
smartboard, a document camera, and Apple TV hardware. For software, Mrs. Frankie had
Google apps, other educational apps, and Microsoft Office. It appeared that the software was
used as an extra resource to expand her students’ learning experience in various content areas
such as mathematics, literacy, and science. For instance, Mrs. Frankie had her students create a
collage of three-dimensional shapes and label each picture with the proper name. Before having
the students complete the task, she modeled how to use the application on the iPad and reviewed
the various tools. She also created a chart with the shapes and their names on a large poster for
students to use as a reference. In this observation, this activity could have been done with paper,
scissors, and glue but was done using a collaging application. This experience allowed the
students to search for their pictures and design their collage in various ways that could not have
been done using the traditional paper collage method. It also made the teacher’s preparation for
the activity easier because she did not have to search for the pictures, print them, and then give
them to the students. Thus, while this was a teacher-initiated activity, the students were given the
opportunity to express their creativity via a technological tool, which enhanced their learning
experience, by Mrs. Frankie’s philosophy.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 74
Teacher 5
Mrs. Emma is a kindergarten teacher at Bear school. She has been teaching for about 20
years in the kindergarten classroom, with five of those years at this magnet school. She has a
Master’s degree and reported that she has been integrating technology in the classroom for more
than five years. While she shared similar positive beliefs about the use of technology in the
classroom, she was the only teacher who mentioned possible negative effects related to the
misuse or meaningless use of technology. She contended that technology can both improve and
hinder students’ learning, depending on how it is used and the learning environment in which it
is presented. Mrs. Emma described the best environment for student learning as one that is well
balanced between being warm and flexible and having boundaries and well-established
expectations. She emphasized that she always tries to establish a growth mindset in her students
and to let them know that it is acceptable to make mistakes. She identified important elements in
teaching as knowledge of technology, content, and pedagogy. In large, Mrs. Emma holds a
positive perception of the impact of technology on students’ learning but is cautious about the
possible negative effects when it is used meaninglessly. She also stated that she feels confident in
her technological skills and knowledge but is not an expert, as she recognizes that there is much
more to learn.
Pedagogical beliefs. When asked whether the presence of technology could improve
teaching and learning, Mrs. Emma strongly agreed. She stated that technology can improve
students’ engagement and motivation. Her positive beliefs about technology were illustrated in
her claim that technology can be integrated into any lesson or content area in academia. She
stated that her beliefs about teaching and learning have changed in her many years of teaching.
She explained that, 20 years ago, kindergarten was more developmentally appropriate for young
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 75
students. She had more flexibility in what she taught and gave students more time for free play
and unstructured time. However, she stated that kindergarten has become very academic and,
with the movement to technology use, has changed how she teaches and how her students learn.
She admitted that she does not believe in everything that she teaches because most of it comes
from the Common Core Standards. “Some standards I believe are too much but I need to help
them meet it.” Mrs. Emma stated that, to make her teaching more student-centered, she tries to
incorporate her students’ interests in her curriculum planning. When asked to identify the most
effective approach to use technology in teaching, she stated that she views technology only as a
support tool. Technology “cannot be the only thing. It is a piece that supports learning and
instruction but we cannot rely completely on it.” The other teachers in this study also shared her
perspective on technology as a support tool.
Pedagogical practices. While Mrs. Emma stated that she only sometimes uses
technology into her teaching practice, she said that her students have frequent opportunities to
use it in their learning. The hardware in her classroom is similar to that in the classrooms of other
teachers at Hiro, although instead of a smartboard she has a smart television that connects to her
computer and projects her working screen. Her students have their own iPads with educational
software applications such as BrainPop, ScratchJr. ABC Mouse, and Nearpod to expand their
learning. Mrs. Emma stated that there are limits to what she can do with technology for in her
teaching but noted that there are various ways in which technology can be used and integrated
into the learning experience. In the observations, Mrs. Emma had her students use the iPad to
work on a mathematics activity and to scan barcodes from a card to listen to stories. She used the
smart television during transitions from one activity to another and showed the students
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 76
interactive videos. She also used it to project on the large screen what she was doing. In all, her
positive beliefs about technology and its function were closely aligned with her practice.
Discussion
In analyzing the quantitative data from the 15 kindergarten teachers and the qualitative
data from the five kindergarten teachers at high-technology-use schools, it is apparent that a
majority of them hold a very positive view of technology. In the interviews and the survey, all
five teachers reported that they felt confident in using technology. This was supported in their
practice during the observations. The majority agreed that technology can improve teaching and
students’ learning because it engages the students and provides alternative opportunities to learn
via various educational software applications. This positive belief was reflected in their practice
during the observations. All five observed teachers either used hardware to teach or used
software for learning activities. Given the context of the high-technology-use school, it makes
sense that the five kindergarten teachers used technology frequently and believed in the possible
positive outcomes of integrating technology into the classroom. It should be noted that, while all
of the teachers shared positive perspectives regarding technology use, all of them noted that
technology is only a support tool that enhances their teaching but does not replace it. They
shared the pedagogical practice of integrating technology throughout classroom operations rather
than focusing on one content area or one time block to use technology. This may be why their
schools are classified as high-technology-use schools, as technology is integrated into almost
everything that they do.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, What is the nature of technology use in kindergarten
teachers’ pedagogy? To address this question, five teachers were observed in their classrooms
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 77
and then asked in interviews about the role of technology in their teaching practices and in
students’ learning. In doing so, a cross-reference between what teachers said and what actually
occurred can be made for data validity assurance. Two cycles of coding were used for both the
interview data and the observation data. The first cycle consisted of scanning the observation
notes for segments of data that could be coded using emergent codes found in the data, as well as
a priori codes, which according to Miles et al. (2014) are concepts from prior literature. Then,
interviews with the teachers were fully transcribed and analyzed using the same code legend. Of
the eight codes, five were a priori codes from the literature review of prior research and the
theoretical framework: pedagogical practice; technological skills; use of technology; students’
engagement; and pedagogical beliefs. From the survey responses and from reviewing all
observation and interview notes, three codes emerged: classroom management; classroom
environment; and students’ activities. The second cycle of coding consisted of grouping the
emergent and a priori codes into smaller categories, analyzing for patterns, and a conducting
comparative analysis between each interview and the corresponding observation. In this section,
data related to the use of technology, classroom management, and classroom environment are
reported to address Research Question 2.
Technology as a Teaching and Learning Tool
In looking at how technology was used and for what purposes, it was consistent across all
five interviewees that technology integration meant integrating technology as a resource tool into
the daily classroom routine. Mrs. Emma described technology integration simply: “There is no
tech time, technology just becomes a part of our everyday. It is part of the classroom culture to
use technology and not make it a big thing.” In all 10 observations, technology was not treated
nor seen as a curriculum of its own, which, according to these kindergarten teachers, is the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 78
ideology behind technology integration in their district. In order to understand the nature of
technology use, technology as a tool for learning, and technology as a tool for teaching must be
differentiated. This section examines the nature of technology use first as a teaching tool and
then as a learning tool.
Teaching tool. During the observations, all of the teachers were seen to use technology
to facilitate their teaching. One interesting tool that was used was a microphone that was worn
like a necklace. Each teacher used the microphone to broadcast her voice throughout the
classroom. The use of the microphone allowed the teachers’ voice to be heard while she talked
using a very soothing and calm tone. This use of a microphone to broadcast one’s voice without
having to raise the volume created a very calming classroom environment. This tool illustrates
how the use of technology, in this case a microphone, can be integrated into teachers’ practice to
enhance it. Teachers can easily gain their students’ attention without having to speak loudly.
Another tool used by all five teachers was either a computer or an iPad connected to the
smartboard. All five teachers used the smartboard to broadcast what they were doing and to
model the steps for the current project. For instance, Mrs. Frankie demonstrated how to make a
picture collage on an application using the iPad and used the smartboard to project her iPad
screen. She then walked her students through the functions of various tools and modeled some
technical skills such as holding down an image to delete it or dragging an image across the
screen or using two fingers to zoom in and out. After she had modeled the technical skills for
each step, the students demonstrated their learning on their iPads.
Thus, technology was observed to be a resourceful tool that aided in teachers teaching as
it made giving instructions and modeling certain behaviors easier for students to see. In the
interviews, all of the teachers said that they use technology because it is more efficient and easier
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 79
to keep track of students’ progress. The teachers used the selected software because it is
sponsored by the district to allow teachers to receive up-to-date progress reports on each student.
For instance, the application called JiJi is a math program that starts students at a basic level. As
they progress through the games, the math becomes more challenging and they move up levels.
This progression through levels is tracked by the application and shared with the teacher. The
teachers use this information to inform their lesson planning. Mrs. Leah stated, “It’s so efficient
with these apps because it lets me know where all my kids are at, and I know where they are
struggling so I can plan my lessons around that.”
Thus, the nature of technology usage as a teaching tool was perceived to make the
various realms of teaching (e.g., modeling how to do something, providing instructions, teaching
a lesson, and tracking student progress) to be more efficient. Mrs. Emma emphasized that
technology does not and cannot replace teaching because it is “only a tool that supports and adds
to teaching.” Hence, in analyzing the nature of technology’s role in the teachers’ pedagogical
practice, it is apparent that technology is used as a resourceful teaching tool that makes the
common strains of teaching, such as gaining and holding students’ attention, keeping track of
students’ progress, and providing workshop-style instructions much more efficient.
Learning tool. Many of the teachers in this case study also described technology as an
effective tool for supporting students’ learning. When asked to identify benefits of using
technology in the classroom, all of the teachers responded that technology enriches their
students’ learning because of the various educational applications that provide engaging and
hands-on activities. Mrs. Frankie emphasized that technology “only enhances learning, not in
lieu of learning.” She explained that technology enhances learning because it provides activities
that make the concepts that they are learning more concrete.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 80
The teachers stated that technology is used to not only to enrich students’ learning
experiences but also to demonstrate their learning. Mrs. Kasey stated, “It gives them a tool to
express their learning—they can choose ways to show their learning and create projects.” This
perspective of technology as a tool that allows differentiation in students’ learning and
expressing their learning was shared by the other teachers in the study. Mrs. Ryan added that
students get to “learn at their own pace using the different programs, it’s more of an exploratory
way of learning.”
Thus, the teachers in this study saw software as a resourceful tool that allows for
differentiation of their students. This goal of differentiating students’ learning and supporting
each student at a personal developmental level seems to be a novel goal. Mrs. Leah stated that, in
her early teaching career, she taught all students from the book and had to assume that they were
all at the same level to ensure that they met the requirements for the next year. “There wasn’t
really any way to differentiate the lesson for each student.” However, she said that, with these
applications, students can learn at their own pace. They start at the beginner’s level and,
depending on their performance, they either advance to the next level or continue to work at the
level until they have mastered the skills. Hence, in this context, while all students are learning
mathematics and have the same goal, the pace at which each student gets to the goal depends on
that student. This illustrates how technology, used in this context, can supplement and enrich
students’ learning.
In the observations, all of the students had opportunities to use technology for either
applying their learning or demonstrating their learning. For instance, in Mrs. Frankie’s
classroom, students used a picture collage application on the iPads to demonstrate their learning
of three-dimensional shapes. In Mrs. Kasey’s classroom, students used an application to work on
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 81
mathematics concepts. Mrs. Emma’s students used the iPads to listen to stories and to work on a
mathematics activity that involved counting. In Mrs. Leah’s classroom, the students used a
mathematics application on the iPads, documented their drawings on the iPads, and recorded
their poetry reading using the iPads. In Mrs. Ryan’s classroom, students used the iPads to take a
picture of their art project and to share it with their parents. In each of these observations,
technology was used either to supplement the students’ learning experiences or to showcase it.
Thus, the nature of technology in this context is a resourceful tool that supplements and
differentiates students’ learning experiences. It allows students to learn at their own pace, it
allows them to demonstrate their learning in various ways, and it provides instant feedback that
keeps them engaged and motivated.
Discussion
Overall, based on the observations and interviews, all five teachers saw the role of
technology as an efficient teaching tool and as a resourceful learning tool. Technology was
integrated into the daily classroom routine but was never used as a topic on its own. There was a
sense of a classroom climate established regarding how to handle the technology properly (e.g.,
holding the iPad with two hands, handling it with care) but the technology was used for
supplemental purposes. Mrs. Ryan stated that the goal of using technology in her classroom was
to provide her students with “experiences to be relatable to what is going on.” All of the teachers
in this case study stated that their district, SUSD, puts a heavy emphasis on technology
integration because the district recognizes that young children are living in an era when
technology is everywhere and students need to learn the 21st-century skills, which include
learning how to use technology. Relating this to the first research question, it appears that
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 82
teachers have positive perceptions about technology integration in their pedagogy because of the
manner in which it is used as a resourceful and supportive teaching and learning tool.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, What is the relationship, if any, between teachers’ beliefs,
practices, and perceived knowledge? The question focuses on determining whether there are
associations among the three variables. According to the TPACK framework, teachers who are
able to integrate technology into their practice effectively have three kinds of knowledge:
content; pedagogy; and technical. This implies a relationship between knowledge and practice,
where knowledge influences the outcomes of practice. Belief is another factor taken into account
in this study because prior research indicates that teachers’ beliefs about technology influence
their practice. To address this research question, data obtained via the survey, observations, and
interviews were used. The survey focused on the teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, and practice
regarding technology integration. These quantitative data were analyzed by looking at
frequencies, such as the median and mode of responses to each survey item. Figure 4 illustrates
the results of the qualitative variables, beliefs and practice and the relationships found in this
study. The x-axis represents the frequency in which teachers use technology in their teaching
practice. The y-axis represents teachers’ beliefs about technology’s impact on students learning.
In this explanatory sequential approach, the y-axis, teachers’ beliefs, is used to explain the x-
axis, teachers’ practice.

TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 83

Figure 4. Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices.

Figure 4 illustrates that teachers who reported using technology more frequently in their
practice also reported having positive beliefs and perceptions about technology as an educational
tool used technology. Figure 4 also brings forth two points. First is the commonality in responses
among the kindergarten teachers. The teachers were asked on a Likert-type scale of 1 (strongly
agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) whether they believed that technology could improve students’
learning. 13 of the 16 teachers strongly agreed, as is shown on the y-axis. They were then asked
on a scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always) how often they used technology in their teaching practices.
Eight of the 13 teachers who responded strongly agreed that they used technology frequently, as
shown in the green bar on the x-axis.
The second point that Figure 4 illustrates is the relationship between the teachers’
positive beliefs about the impact of technology on education and the frequency with which they
used technology. Data obtained from the observations and interviews, which are of a qualitative
nature, were used to triangulate the analysis and to explain why a relationship occurred in this
given context. The descriptive data were first analyzed individually to identify emergent and a
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 84
priori codes. Then, using the same code legends, a cross-analysis was conducted to highlight
common themes from the set of data as a whole.
Finding
As stated in the findings for Research Question 1, all of the teachers in this case study
held very positive perspectives about technology’s influence on their teaching and their students’
learning. They provided concrete reasons for their belief that technology is a beneficial tool, for
example, because it made a mundane teaching task more efficient and enriched their students’
learning by providing engaging, hands-on learning. This illustrates that the more positive beliefs
teachers have about technology, the more likely they will integrate it into their pedagogical
practice. Of course, this finding is situated in the context of two very high-technology-use
schools in a district that has technology integration at the top of its priority list.
Discussion
While the data indicated a strong relationship between practice and beliefs, there was not
enough evidence to support a relationship among knowledge, practice, and beliefs. While 57%
of the 16 teachers reported that their educational background had not prepared them to integrate
technology, approximately 70% reported that their professional development had prepared them
and had provided needed support. This finding aligns with the model of teacher change, which
states that teachers’ training has a significant impact on their beliefs and their practices.
During her interview, Mrs. Leah stated, “I think that our school is lucky because we have
administrators and the district who really encourages and support technology, which is huge.”
Thus, if schools and key stakeholders want teachers to use technology, they must provide proper
training and support. Mrs. Leah added, “We have great professional development and that has
shaped me and how I use technology in my classroom.” Mrs. Leah was not the only teacher who
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 85
spoke of support received from the district. In fact, every teacher who was interviewed referred
to having had some sort of support to make technology integration successful. Mrs. Kasey stated
that having all the necessary technology, such as one-to-one iPads, is important because it gives
each student an equal opportunity to explore and to have experiences to learn with the
technology. Mrs. Frankie talked about how being in a privileged district that has the financial
resources to pay for educational applications makes a difference. Mrs. Emma talked about
training and having a technology coach who comes to the classroom to help teachers to integrate
technology. The technology coach gives ideas and information about which applications are
good for what content. Mrs. Emma emphasized that having such support has been a critical part
of what she believes makes technology integration successful throughout her school, not only in
her classroom. Similarly, Mrs. Ryan discussed the importance of good professional development
that helps teachers to “know how to filter through all the educational applications and determine
which ones are just fun and games and which ones can provide the quality learning experiences.”
Summary of Findings
Overall, the theme that was repeated in the interviews was the important role that teacher
training and support play in teachers’ beliefs about technology and their practice. Thus, while
knowledge was not a prominent variable, the training that created the knowledge was. With that
said, the finding in this study highlights the key notion from the model of teacher change.
Teachers’ change in this context resulted from professional development received from the
district. The kindergarten teachers noted in their survey responses that their professional
development had prepared them more than had their educational background. In their interviews,
they shared how support from the district and training provided by the district had shaped what
they believed about technology use in the classroom, as well as how they integrated technology
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 86
into their everyday practice. This finding supports the argument that schools should provide
proper and high-quality training to ensure that their teachers feel supported so they will be more
likely to change the way they feel about a practice and how they make adjustments to their
pedagogy.
Another theme that emerged from this study was how technology is perceived and used
only as a resourceful tool. In this school district, technology integration means integrating
technological tools into the everyday classroom routine. Technology integration does not mean
focusing on technology as a topic per se nor does it mean replacing traditional teaching and
learning practices. In these five kindergarten classrooms, it was clear that the nature of
technology use was as a resourceful tool that made teaching practices more efficient for teachers,
allowed for differentiation in students’ learning pace, and provided supplemental learning
experiences.
Lastly, across all five teachers, there was a theme of modesty. In the observations,
teachers were observed using technology very confidently. However, when asked to self-
evaluate their technological knowledge and ability, all five teachers rated themselves to be
average and stated, “there is more to learn.” Not only were the teachers being modest about their
skills, they also displayed a growth mindset by acknowledging that more learning can occur even
when you are well skilled.
In this chapter, we discovered the important role teacher training plays on teachers’
beliefs and practices. We also gained a better understanding of the nature of technology used in
highly equipped kindergarten classrooms. In the final chapter, we will revisit the conceptual
framework guiding the premise of this case study. We will also analyze the findings of this study
alongside prior literature to discuss the themes that have emerged.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 87
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
With the high number of school districts quickly joining the technology integration
movement, it is important to understand the emerging changes to teachers’ pedagogical practices
and to students’ learning. The limited research available on teachers’ beliefs and practices in
relation to technology integration leaves room for further exploration. This gap between rapid
technology integration in schools and the limited database on how technology integration is
carried out in the classroom indicates a lack of understanding of how technology integration
influences traditional teaching practices and students’ learning experiences. This study focuses
on understanding teachers’ beliefs and practices in relation to technology integration. It was
designed to understand the nature of technology use in the classroom in order to inform various
stakeholders in the education system. District and school officials can have a better
understanding of how teachers’ perceptions relate to their practices and use that understanding
for future professional development. Parents can have a better understanding of the nature of
technology integration in their children’s classrooms. Essentially, with kindergarten being the
entry to the school system, understanding the pedagogical beliefs and practices of kindergarten
teachers provides insight into how the foundations of students’ learning are formed at the entry
level.
This study focused on five kindergarten teachers from Sunny Unified School District
(SUSD), a high-technology-use and high-student-achievement district in Southern California.
Understanding the pedagogical beliefs and practices of these five teachers provides educational
leaders insight into the critical role of professional development in the relationships among
practice, beliefs, and knowledge. This chapter presents the findings through the lens of a
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 88
conceptual framework, then presents an analysis of emerged themes, and ends with a discussion
of the limitations and implications of the study.
Conceptual Framework Revisited
Originally, the conceptual framework that informed this research and shaped the
organization of ideas was focused on the interplay between Gusky’s (2002) model of teacher
change and Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) TPACK. The TPACK framework examines the
interaction among three knowledge components to determine the variation in technology
integration among educators. As shown in Figure 5, the literature indicates relationships among
teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and their students’ achievement; teachers’ training was thought to
influence teachers’ beliefs.

Figure 5. Conceptual model combining the TPACK framework with the Model of Teacher
Change.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 89
However, in addressing the three research questions in this case study, the influence of
teacher training in this triadic relationship was found to be much stronger as it directly influences
more than one variable. Prior research indicates that professional training on how to use and
incorporate technology can provide teachers with knowledge that makes them feel more
confident in their abilities (Guskey, 2002) and maintains that this knowledge will add to their
TPACK.
While this notion was found to be consistent in the study, teacher training played a more
critical role than was originally conceptualized. The results of this case study indicated that
teachers’ training played a significant role in the integration of technology into the classroom and
into the practices of the five kindergarten teachers from high-technology-use schools who were
interviewed for the study. The findings indicated that teacher training served as a catalysis that
facilitated great change in teachers’ beliefs and knowledge.
As shown in Figure 6, teachers’ training has a direct influence on both teachers’ beliefs
and teachers’ knowledge. The thing red and blue thin arrows represent the direct influence.

Figure 6. Revised conceptual model.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 90
The teachers in this study shared that their training had shaped their pedagogical beliefs
about teaching and about how students learn. In the interviews, the teachers referred to their
professional training when asked what had aided in their technology integration and what factors
were necessary for successful technology integration. All participants consistently stated that
their training had added to their knowledge of how to integrate technology and how to filter the
technological choices. In examining this finding alongside the conceptual framework, when
teachers’ beliefs and their knowledge are combined, represented by the purple plus sign, the
influence on their practice was much greater than influence only on their beliefs or knowledge
alone. For that reason, the large purple arrow after the plus sign illustrates the stronger influence
of the combination of the two variables, compared to the thin red or blue arrows that come from
only one variable. At the end of the figure is the illustration of how teachers’ practice influences
their students’ achievement. The green arrow coming from the student achievement circle,
looping back toward teachers’ beliefs, illustrates how students’ achievement can reinforce
teacher’s beliefs, which then reinforces teachers’ practice. The green arrows illustrate the looping
reinforcement of one variable to another.
It should also be noted that the blue dotted circle around each variable represents the
context in which each variable takes place. In this case study, the context of teacher training took
place in a high-socioeconomic-status district with a high priority for technology integration; thus,
there was greater investment in training. The contexts of the teachers’ beliefs and TPACK are
dependent on each teacher and that teacher’s background. The context of teachers’ practice,
while dependent on each teacher, is also dependent on the teaching environment. In this study,
the context of each classroom was very similar and the environment was set up consistently,
from the child-sized furniture to the types of technology in the classroom and the small
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 91
classroom sizes. Looking at the big picture, this revised conceptual model illustrates the
significant influence of teacher training on teachers’ beliefs and how changes in teachers’
practice are the result of more than one variable. Teacher training is the key factor in this model
because it directly changes teachers’ beliefs and knowledge and it indirectly changes teachers’
practice.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducted a national district-level
survey from 1994 to 2005 to measure the availability and use of educational technology in public
schools. The NCES reported that only 55% of the districts required teachers to take professional
development courses related to technology integration. This was not the case for the teachers in
SUSD. Mrs. Leah stated that, because technology integration is one of the top priorities for the
district, training on how to use certain technological tools, exposure to a range of educational
applications, and training on how to integrate technology in various ways is provided to the
teachers. The district also has a technology coach who comes to the classroom each month to
observe the teachers as they use technology. The technology coach also provides feedback for
improvements or recommends new applications that relate to a current or lesson topic. This is an
indication of two things: (a) the investment by SUSD in technology integration; and (b) the
impact of teacher training on teachers’ beliefs and practices. While the intent of this study was
not to evaluate the quality of professional development provided to teachers, the consistency
across the five teachers’ beliefs about technology, their practice, and what was observed in the
classroom provides a strong indication that the professional training that these five teachers have
received has made a critical impact on their pedagogical beliefs and practices. As Ertmer (2005)
asserted, most teachers, novice or veterans, have limited understanding and experience regarding
how to integrate technology to enhance teaching and facilitate learning. The findings in this case
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 92
study affirm Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change that teachers’ training is the most crucial
factor in the implementation of any new practice because it sets off a chain of reactions, as
illustrated in Figure 6, the revised conceptual model.
Themes
In addressing the research questions, three themes emerged from the data: (a) Technology
can be a resourceful tool for teachers and students; (b) technology can be used to facilitate
student-centered approaches; and (c) teachers’ positive perspectives regarding technology’s
impact result in more teacher buy-in and usage of technology. These themes are discussed in this
section in relation to prior research.
Technology as a Resourceful Tool
Cuban (2001) stated that the movement to integrate technology in education started with
computers because they were believed to help teachers with paperwork, grading, and
communications between teachers and students. Over the years, as technological tools continued
to improve, the purpose of a computer and the simple goal of teaching students how to use a
computer advanced to teaching students using technological tools and incorporating technology
into teaching and learning pedagogies (Culp et al., 2005).
This evolution in the use of technology in the classroom was prominent among the five
kindergarten teachers who participated in this study. Mrs. Frankie stated that technology has
made traditional teaching practices more efficient and free of stress. She projects work examples
for her students and illustrates how to complete a task or use a skill. During the observation, she
used the smartboard to broadcast the work of individual students to facilitate discussion. She also
used her iPad to demonstrate technical skills in using a certain application. Mrs. Ryan stated that
technology has allowed her to track her students’ progress and development. Mrs. Leah stated
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 93
that the educational applications do all of the time-consuming work of tracking students’
progress and creating reports, which allows her to spend more time on teaching aspects rather
than grading. Mrs. Emma and Mrs. Leah shared that technology provides their students with
quick access to various knowledge and information. For example, students were learning about
spiders and had a question during their group discussion for which the teacher did not have an
answer. Using a technological device that uses a voice control system, Mrs. Kasey said simply,
“Alexa, are spiders . . .?” and the device provided an answer within seconds. Mrs. Kasey stated
that such technology has given students full access to a wide range of information. Similarly,
Mrs. Emma stated that technology can be integrated into almost every learning experience and
provides alternatives to learning. In the observations, her students used technology to read, to
listen to stories, to do mathematics activities, and to practice following multistep instructions.
The teachers made clear that they did not use technology for one specific area or assign a
designated technology time; rather, they have established classroom environments where using
technology throughout the day for various purposes is a norm for the students. This practice of
technology integration throughout classroom routines exemplifies the argument by Ertmer and
Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) that technology integration should not be seen as an isolated goal but
in conjunction with pedagogical goals so that technology integration becomes technology-
enabled learning. In sum, technology is fully integrated into the classrooms and practices of the
five kindergarten teachers in this case study because technology is perceived and used as a
resourceful tool for teaching and learning, with a variety of purposes.
Student-Centered Learning and 21st-Century Skills
The second theme that emerged from the findings concerned the teachers’ pedagogical
goal of fostering a student-centered approach and teaching 21st-century skills. Cuban (2001)
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 94
explained that the third goal of the coalition was to ensure that the current generation of children
is prepared for the future workplace. Subsequently, the notion of 21st-century skills has become
the overarching goal of many schools and has influenced the revision of standards and
assessments for teaching and learning to reflect these skills (Miller & Bartlett, 2012). Digital
literacy has been included in the standards for students’ achievement, which is defined as the
ability to use technological tools and media to find, evaluate, create, and communicate
information (Rosen, 2010).
In this study, the teachers stated that the nature of technology use in their classrooms had
multiple purposes. The two consistently named purposes were (a) fostering a student-centered
approach and (b) developing 21st-century skills. Mrs. Frankie and Mrs. Leah stated that that one
of the benefits of using technology is that it allows teachers to facilitate a student-centered
learning experience for their students. Mrs. Frankie defined student-centered instruction as
“where the students are what drive the instructions and not a test.” Mrs. Kasey added that she
tries to apply the learning standards to topics that are of interest to her students or to areas in
which the majority of her students need help. In doing so, her lessons are planned around the
development and interests of her students, not just the standards. This student-centered approach
parallels the findings from Grimes’ and Warschauer ‘s (2008) study on the impact of technology
on students’ mathematics and writing skills. Those researchers found that technological tools
such as laptops had the potential to facilitate writing when it served as an information-rich,
multimodal tool paired with student-centered instruction. Mrs. Emma stated that, while there is a
set curriculum for the kindergarten grade level, she delivers the curriculum based on her
students’ needs. She emphasized the importance of a student-centered approach, noting that
lessons based on her students’ interests “lead to their buy-in and more engagement.” Mrs. Ryan
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 95
shared this pedagogical belief and practice, stating that a student-centered approach is one of the
important elements to facilitate student learning. She shared that she uses technology because it
allows for differentiated learning by her students; all have the same goal of meeting a certain
standard but the pace at which they arrive at the goal differs individually. By using the learning
software, her students have more choices to do what they want to do and what interests them.
This notion of allowing students to learn at their own pace was emphasized by the five teachers
and therefore they perceived technology as a tool to facilitate a student-centered approach.
In the process of sharing their goals for technology integration, these kindergarten
teachers mentioned using technology to help their students to develop 21st-century skills. Mrs.
Emma defined theses skills as the four C’s from the Common Core Standards: communication,
critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity. Mrs. Kasey added that living in a time when
technology is interwoven in daily lives, 21st-century skills also encompass technical skills. Mrs.
Ryan stated,
By allowing the kids to use technology, to have the experiences, they can be relatable to
what is going on. We live in a world where technology is everywhere so it would be a
disservice to the kids if we didn’t give them these experiences.
Mrs. Ryan pointed out that students come from a range of family backgrounds. She said that, by
exposing her students to technology and integrating it into classroom routines, she is providing
experiences that she believes will benefit her students in the future. Thus, what emerged from the
findings is the shared pedagogical belief that technology is a beneficial tool to facilitate student-
centered approaches and to provide students experiences with technology so they can develop
21st-century skills.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 96
Positive Perspectives
Ertmer et al. (2012) found that teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and lack of knowledge and
skills functioned as barriers to technology integration. In other words, when teachers have
positive beliefs about technology, they will be more willing and motivated to integrate
technology and vice versa. The findings from the current study support the Ertmer et al. (2012)
conception. A theme emerged related to Research Question 1, regarding teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs about technology integration. Of the 16 kindergarten teachers who were surveyed, 81%
stated that they felt confident in using technology, 75% reported that they had the necessary
support, 87% agreed that technology can improve teaching and students’ learning experiences,
and 93% agreed that technology can improve students’ engagement and motivation. These high
percentages are an indication of the teachers’ positive beliefs about and attitudes toward
technology integration. As a result of these positive affects, there were very few barriers to
technology integration at the teacher level in Bear and Hiro schools, compared to what Ertmer et
al. (2012) reported in their study. The teachers who reported having these positive beliefs about
technology also reported using technology either always or frequently in their classroom. The
data from the observations and interviews support these findings, as every teacher was observed
to use technology in various ways. In the interviews, the teachers explained that they see the
benefits and positive impacts of technology on their students and thus they choose to invest in it
and use it when the opportunity arises.
Bingimlas’s (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature on barriers associated with
teachers’ technology integration and identified teachers’ resistance as one of the most prominent
barriers to technology integration. The resistance often stems from feeling intimidated,
unknowledgeable, or incompetent to integrate technology (Bingimlas, 2009). This was not the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 97
case in the current study. On a scale of 1 (no skills) to 10 (highly skilled), all of the teachers rated
themselves at either seven or eight. Mrs. Frankie rated herself at eight, explaining that, while she
is skilled and knowledgeable with using the technology in her classroom, she is aware that there
is a variety of other technological tools and educational applications that she has yet to learn.
Sharing the same modest belief, Mrs. Leah, Mrs. Kasey, and Mrs. Ryan explained that beginner
teachers come to them for technology support and advice but they do not consider themselves to
be experts. Mrs. Emma rated herself at seven, explaining that “there is a lot more that I want to
learn and I’m always willing to learn and do more.” In all, the findings indicated that the
majority of these kindergarten teachers felt confident in using technology, had a modest and
growth mindset that there is always more to learn, and held positive beliefs about technology’s
impact. As a result of these positive attitudes and beliefs, these teachers were willing and
motivated to use technology in their classrooms. This finding provides insight into barriers to
technology integration at the teacher level. The two target schools are high-use technology
schools not only because the district invests in teachers’ training but also because the teachers
have positive beliefs and attitudes about technology integration.
Limitations of the Study
While this study used a mixed-methods approach and triangulated the data, some
limitations are inherent in these approaches. First, this study used a case study approach to gather
data about five kindergarten teachers; thus, the findings are as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) would
suggest, grounded in a single bounded context. The context of the study was a high-
socioeconomic district with high levels of student achievements. Thus, generalizing the findings
to other teachers in other districts would not be appropriate because contexts differ. As the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 98
conceptual model illustrates, each variable is situated within its own context, and these contexts
influence the related variable.
This study looked specifically at kindergarten teachers; generalizing the themes found in
this study to other teachers at other grade levels would not be appropriate. Even among teachers
in the same school, the pedagogical beliefs and practices of a kindergarten teacher are likely to
be different from those of a fifth-grade teacher, since teachers often center their pedagogical
approach on the development of their students.
Another limitation of this study has to do with the credibility of the data. Observations
were used to gather qualitative data regarding the nature of technology use by the five teachers.
However, only two 60-minute observations were conducted for each teacher. These one-hour
observations were scheduled around an instructional time involving technology. While these
intentional observation times helped to address the research questions, they limited the data.
More observations or longer observation periods that look at how technology is and is not
integrated throughout a typical school day would enhance credibility and provide a fuller picture
of the nature of technology use.
The participants in this study were volunteers, which was the only way of getting
teachers to participate. The act of volunteering reflected these teachers’ confidence in their
teaching ability to the point that they would welcome a researcher into the classroom. Of the 16
teachers who were surveyed, only five were willing to be observed and interviewed. In analyzing
the teachers’ demographic backgrounds and responses, little variance among the teachers in the
case study was seen. Four of the five teachers had a Masters’ degree, three had taught for more
than 10 years, and four had taught kindergarten for more than eight years. The relatively
homogenous characteristics of this group do not necessarily capture the heterogeneity in the
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 99
population of either these schools or the district. Many of the teachers’ responses were parallel.
While consistent responses provided strong supporting evidence to address each research
question, the limited variance in teachers’ beliefs and practices limited the ability to find
contrasts in the data. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), variation in data allows for the
possibility of a greater range of generalization and application by consumers of the research.
Improvements
Improvements to the design of this study could result in richer and more credible data. If
a more representative population of kindergarten teachers in SUSD were randomly selected
rather than self-volunteered, the data would be a better representation of the kindergarten
teachers in SUSD. A random selection approach would yield a higher probability of variance
among participants. In addition, random full day of observations of each participant could result
in more comprehensive qualitative data. Had the participants’ schedules allowed it, a focus group
interview would have provided rich qualitative data to compare and contrast beliefs and attitudes
among the participants.
Implications
The extensive research on the barriers that schools face in integrating technology
illustrates that effective technology integration has not been accomplished with ease (Chen,
2008; Cuban, 2001; Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer et al., 2012; Hew & Brush, 2007; O’Mahony, 2003).
At the external level, these barriers deal with lack of financial support and resources. At the
internal level, these barriers deal with teachers’ resistance and lack of training. At Hiro and Bear
schools, it appears that the district has eliminated both external and internal barriers. Classrooms
are well equipped with the latest technological tools and teachers are well supported with
technology coaches and training. The findings from this study, indicating the resourceful nature
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 100
of technology usage, the positive attitudes and beliefs of teachers towards technology integration
and the significant role of teacher training in overcoming the internal barriers provides insight
into what effective technology integration looks like and the classroom culture in which in exists.
However, these findings point to the need for more integrated and ongoing professional
development for teachers regarding technology integration. In order to create change in teachers’
practices, educational leaders should focus attention on changes to teacher training to start a
chain reaction in teachers’ beliefs and knowledge.
Recommendations for Future Research
More attention should be focused on the quality of professional development and factors
that make it effective for teachers with regard to technology integration. Findings from this study
can inform educational leaders regarding streamlined professional development, using the same
quality checklist.
A comparative case study of kindergarten teachers working in districts that are on the
other end of the technology integration spectrum could assist in comparing and contrasting the
factors that facilitate or hinder technology integration at the kindergarten level.
Rather than focusing on one grade level, research with more resources should look at all
grade levels in a school to gather comprehensive data pertaining to effective or ineffective
technology integration within one geographical context.
Longitudinal studies focused on the impact of technology integration on students’
learning and achievement could provide insight into whether the education system is moving in a
positive direction or a negative direction, as reflected in student outcomes.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 101
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand the pedagogical beliefs and practices of
kindergarten teachers and the nature of technology integration in a technology-rich context. This
mixed-methods case study used interview excerpts and observational data from five kindergarten
teachers to explain the quantitative data obtained from 16 survey respondents at two elementary
schools in the same district. These two schools are recognized for their students’ achievements
and their technology-equipped classrooms. Triangulated data highlighted the significant role of
teacher training in successful technology integration in these five classrooms.
Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, practices, and knowledge are important constructs that are
influenced by teacher training. As the findings in this study indicate, teachers’ practice is closely
aligned with teachers’ beliefs. Teachers who believed technology could have a positive impact
on teaching and learning, also used technology in their practice more frequently. Moreover,
technology integration in the classroom means using technology as a resourceful tool rather than
focusing on technology as a content area on its own. These findings contribute to the current
body of research on technology integration and add to the literature on addressing barriers to
technology integration. Overall, this study provides a better understanding of the interplay
among teachers’ beliefs, practice, and knowledge. The findings highlight the need for integrated
and ongoing professional development for teachers to address the second-order barriers to
technology integration.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 102
REFERENCES
Aldhafeeri, F., Palaiologou, I., & Folorunsho, A. (2016). Integration of digital technologies into
play-based pedagogy in Kuwaiti early childhood education: Teachers’ views, attitudes
and aptitudes. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24, 342-360.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2011). Media use by children younger than 2 years.
Pediatrics, 128, 1040-1045.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). Acoustics in educational settings:
Technical report. Washington, DC: Author.
An, Y. J., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms:
K–12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62.
Anderson, D. R., & Pempek, T. A. (2005). Television and very young children. American
Behavioral Scientist, 48, 505-522.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 519-546.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing
House, 83(2), 39-43.
Bingimlas, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning
environments: A review of the literature. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science &
Technology Education, 5, 235-245.
Boardman, M. (2007). “I know how much this child has learned. I have proof!” Employing
digital technologies for documentation processes in kindergarten. Australian Journal of
Early Childhood, 32(3), 59-67.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 103
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Buckenmeyer, J. A. (2010). Beyond computers in the classroom: Factors related to technology
adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research,
3(4), 27-31.
Calvert, S. L., Rideout, V. J., Woolard, J. L., Barr, R. F., & Strouse, G. A. (2005). Age, ethnicity,
and socioeconomic patterns in early computer use: A national survey. American
Behavioral Scientist, 48, 590-607.
Cavanagh, R. F., & Koehler, M. J. (2013). A turn toward specifying validity criteria in the
measurement of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 129-148.
Chen, C. (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology
integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 65-75.
Chiong, C., & Shuler, C. (2010). Learning: Is there an app for that? New York, NY: The Joan
Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Christakis, D. A., & Garrison, M. M. (2009). Preschool-aged children's television viewing in
child care settings. Pediatrics, 124, 1627-1632.
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., & Moulton, K. (2010). An analysis of the failure of electronic
media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of guided
training methods. In K. H. Silber & R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of training and
improving workplace performance, Volume 1: Instructional design and training delivery
(pp. 263-297). New York, NY: Wiley.

TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 104
Connell, S. L., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. (2015). Parental co-use of media technology
with their young children in the USA. Journal of Children and Media, 9(1), 5-21.
Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its
viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
43(1), 75-96.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education
technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 279-307.
Daim, T. U., Rueda, G., Martin, H., & Gerdsri, P. (2006). Forecasting emerging technologies:
Use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 73, 981-1012.
Dettelis, P. (2010). New York state technology education: History, the current state of affairs,
and the future. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(4), 34-38.
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teacher’s views of computers as catalyst
for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
31(3), 221-238.
Dwyer, D. C., Ringstaff, C., & Sandholtz, J. H. (1991). Changes in teachers’ beliefs and
practices in technology-rich classrooms. Educational Leadership, 48(8), 45-54.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 105
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001. Title II, Part D: Enhancing
Education Through Technology. Retrieved from www.2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/
pg34.html
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for
technology integration. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 47(4), 47-
61.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology, Research & Development, 53(4), 25-39.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42, 255-284.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes
required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers &
Education, 64, 175-182.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher
beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers &
Education, 59, 423-435.
Feinstein, L., & Duckworth, K. (2006). Development in the early years: Its importance for
school performance and adult outcomes (Wider Benefits of Learning Research Report
No. 20). London, UK: University of London, Institute of Education, Centre for Research
on the Wider Benefits of Learning.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 106
Gray, L., & Lewis, L. (2009). Educational technology in public school districts: Fall 2008
(NCES 2010-003). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 305-332.
Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 8, 381-391.
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.
Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2011). Implications of affective and social neuroscience for
educational theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 98-103.
Jong, T. D. (2016). Instruction based on computer simulations and virtual laboratories. In R. E.
Mayer & P. A. Alexander, Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed.,
pp. 502-515). New York, NY: Routledge.
Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a
connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14, 581-597.
Karagiorgi, Y. (2005). Throwing light into the black box of implementation: ICT in Cyprus
elementary schools. Educational Media International, 42(1), 19-32.
Kasey, C., Kasey, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, M. J., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of
Research and Studies, 29, 76-85.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 107
Knauf, H. (2016). Interlaced social worlds: Exploring the use of social media in the kindergarten.
Early Years, 36, 254-270.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). Introducing TPACK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation
and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lacina, J. (2004). Technology in the classroom promoting language acquisitions: Technology
and English language learners. Childhood Education, 81(2), 113-115.
Lee, S. J., Bartolic, S., & Vandewater, E. A. (2009). Predicting children’s media use in the USA:
Differences in cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 123-143.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2006). Teachers’ beliefs and practices in technology-based
classrooms: A developmental view. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
39(2), 157-181.
Lisenbee, P. (2009). Whiteboards and web sites: Digital tools for the early childhood curriculum.
Young Children, 64(6), 92-95.
López, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’
academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology.
Computers & Education, 54, 901-915.
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.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 108
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, C., & Bartlett, J. (2012). “Digital fluency:” Towards young people’s critical use of the
Internet. Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2), 35-55.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Internet access in U.S. Public schools and
classrooms: 2000–2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S
public schools: 2002–2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
Niederhauser, D. S., & Stoddart, T. (2001). Teachers’ instructional perspectives and use of
educational software. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 15-31.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary School
Act. Public Law 107-110, 2002.
O’Mahony, S. (2003). Guarding the commons: How community-managed software projects
protect their work. Research Policy, 32, 1179-1198.
Orlando, J. (2014). Veteran teachers and technology: Change fatigue and knowledge insecurity
influence practice. Teachers and Teaching, 20, 427-439.
Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods
approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 417-441.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 109
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative research &
evaluation methods (3rd ed., pp. 421-518). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results from a
worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37(2), 163-178.
Petriashvili, I. (2012). Integrating electronic instructional and assessment tools into teacher
education programs. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 5, 323-330.
Philip, T. M., & Garcia, A. D. (2013). The importance of still teaching the iGeneration: New
technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 83, 300-319.
Plowman, L., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2010). Supporting young children’s learning with
technology at home and in preschool. Research Papers in Education, 25(1), 93-113.
Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2012). Preschool children’s learning
with technology at home. Computers & Education, 59(1), 30-37.
Resnick, M. (2008). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning & Leading With
Technology, 35 (4), 18-22.
Rideout, V. J., Vandewater, E. A., & Wartella, E. A. (2003). Zero to six: Electronic media in the
lives of infants, toddlers and preschoolers. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Foundation.
Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 630-634.
Tomopoulos, S., Dreyer, B. P., Berkule, S., Fierman, A. H., Brockmeyer, C., & Mendelsohn, A.
L. (2010). Infant media exposure and toddler development. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine, 164, 1105-1111.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 110
Uçar, S. (2015). The use of technology in teaching science to young children. In K. Cabe
Trundle & M. Saçkes (Eds.), Research in early childhood science education (pp. 167-
184). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Teachers’ tools for the 21st century: A report on
teachers’ use of technology (NCES Publication #2000-102). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000102
Valtonen, T., Pontinen, S., Kukkonen, J., Dillon, P., Väisänen, P., & Hacklin, S. (2011).
Confronting the technological pedagogical knowledge of Finnish Net Generation student
teachers. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(1), 3-18.
Vandewater, E. A., Rideout, V. J., Wartella, E. A., Huang, X., Lee, J. H., & Shim, M. S. (2007).
Digital childhood: Electronic media and technology use among infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers. Pediatrics, 119, e1006-e1015.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: Free Press.
White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. (2010). Solving the problem of childhood
obesity within a generation: Report to the President. Washington, DC: Executive Office
of the President of the United States.
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 111
APPENDIX A
TEACHER SURVEY
Personal Demographics

1. What is your age?
◊ 25 years and younger
◊ 26-35 years old
◊ 36-45 years old
◊ 45 years and older

2. How long have you been teaching?
◊ 0-5 years
◊ 6-10 years
◊ 11-15 years
◊ 16+ years

3. How long have you been teaching in the kindergarten classroom?
◊ 0-5 years
◊ 6-10 years
◊ 11-15 years
◊ 16+ years

4. How long have you been teaching at this school?
◊ 0-5 years
◊ 6-10 years
◊ 11-15 years
◊ 16+ years

5. What is your highest education level?
◊ GED
◊ Bachelors
◊ Masters
◊ Doctorate

Technology and Instruction

6. What technology hardware do you have in your classroom (i.e. computer, laptops,
camera, etc.)?

7. What technology software do you use in your classroom (i.e. Microsoft Word, ABC
Mouse, etc.)?

TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 112
8. I use technology during lesson time in my classroom.
◊ Never
◊ Rarely
◊ Sometimes
◊ Frequently
◊ Always

9. The students in my classroom have opportunities to use technology tools to learn.
◊ Never
◊ Rarely
◊ Sometimes
◊ Frequently
◊ Always

10. I have been integrating technology in my daily lesson for…
◊ 0-1 years
◊ 2-3 years
◊ 4-5 years
◊ 5+ years

11. I feel confident using technology in my daily lessons.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree

12. My educational background prepared me to integrate technology in my curriculum.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree

13. My professional development prepared me to integrate technology in my curriculum.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree

TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 113
I have the support I need to integrate technology in the classroom.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree

14. I believe the presence of technology can improve teaching.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree

15. I believe the presence of technology can improve students’ learning.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree

16. I believe technology can improve students’ motivation and engagement.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree

17. I believe you need to be an expert in technology to use technology for teaching.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree

18. I believe technology can be integrated into any lesson plan/content.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 114

19. I believe technology can hinder learning.
◊ Strongly agree
◊ Somewhat agree
◊ Neither agree or disagree
◊ Somewhat disagree
◊ Strongly disagree

20. I believe the important elements needed in teaching are:
a. Technology
b. Content
c. Pedagogy
d. B & C
e. All of the above
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 115
APPENDIX B
FOLLOW-UP TEACHER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Inform participants:
• Pseudonym will be used
• All responses will be used only for research purposes and will not be shared with any
school personnel
• There are a total of 17 questions and probing questions may be asked if necessary
• The purpose of the study to understand teachers’ pedagogical beliefs behind technology
integration

Background Information:

Teacher _____________________ Date________________________

Years as a kindergarten Teacher ___________________ Time Start____________________

Consent to record: Yes No Time End_____________________

Interview Questions:

Pedagogical knowledge

1. Being a kindergarten teacher for _____ years (insert # reported above), what do you
believe is the best environment for student learning?

2. What do you believe is your role in your students’ learning?

3. What is your philosophy/approach to teaching?

a. Probe: Has your beliefs about teaching and learning changed over time?

4. Can you give me an example of how you think your beliefs are reflected in your planning
and teaching?

5. What elements do you believe are important to facilitate student learning?

Technological knowledge

6. In terms of technology proficiency, how would you describe your technology skills?

TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 116
7. What role does technology play in your teaching?
a. Probe: Can you name some of the technology you use for teaching?
b. Probe: Can you name some of the technology you have used that have not been
successful?

8. In your opinion, what role does technology play in your students’ learning?
a. Probe: Can you discuss how these technologies influence your students’ learning?

9. What is your goal when it comes to integrating technology in the classroom?

10. What do you believe is the most effective approach to use technology in teaching?
a. Probe: Why do you believe this approach is effective?

11. What are some ways you perceive technology integration can impede on students’
learning?

12. What do you perceive as some benefits of technology integration in the classroom?

13. What do you believe makes technology integration successful?

Content knowledge

14. What is your planning process for curriculum?

15. How do you decide when to use technology in your curriculum?
a. Can you give me some examples of learning activities that you have integrated
technology in?

16. Do you believe there is a relationship between the type of curriculum and the type of
technology that should be used?
a. Probe: If yes, what do you believe defines that relationship?

17. Is there anything else you want to add, that I did not think to ask you?
TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY AND PERCEPTION 117
APPENDIX C
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Date: ________________________ Time Begin: ________________________

Teacher: ______________________ Time End: __________________________

Location: _____________________ # of Students present: _________________

Types of technology visible in classroom:

Classroom layout: Teacher (T), Students (S), Researcher (R)

Observation Notes

RQ.2 What is the nature of technology use in kindergarten teachers’ pedagogy?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This case study examined the pedagogies and perceptions of kindergarten teachers who integrate technology in their practice. While there has been a significant increase in technology integration in K–12 schools, the U.S. Department of Education has reported that the use of technology in the classroom tends to be meaningless and low level. For that reason, more attention should be focused on how teachers are using technology for teaching as it influences students’ learning and achievement. It is imperative to investigate technology integration in the early years because kindergarten serves as the entry point to the K–12 educational system and, according to research, young children are most vulnerable to the effects of technology. The focus of this study was teaching practices of kindergarten teachers at a high‐achieving and technology‐rich elementary school in an urban setting. A mixed‐methods approach included surveys, interviews, and observations to triangulate the data and provide insight into teachers’ pedagogies and perceptions as they relate to how the teachers integrate technology in their classrooms. Analysis of the data revealed that technology was fully integrated into the classrooms when it is used a resourceful tool for learning in multiple subjects and not used as a subject on its own. Teachers’ confidence in their technological pedagogy and positive beliefs towards technology’s impact also played a significant role in the classroom’s successful technology integration. The findings of this study can provide a better understanding of the pedagogies that guide technology integration and the beliefs held by kindergarten teachers regarding technology’s impact on teaching and learning.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

PDF

Transformational technology in K-12 schools: an elementary case study

PDF

21st century teaching and learning with technology integration at an innovative high school: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration and implementation in curriculum and instruction in K–12 schools

PDF

Integration of technology and teaching and learning practices at a technology magnet elementary school: a case study

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of the epistemic interface between indigeneity and technology in the Cook Islands

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study

PDF

A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

An exploratory study on flipped learning and the use of self-regulation amongst undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

Impact of technology on teaching and learning practices at high‐technology use K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

Leveraging the principalship for instructional technology equity and access in two urban elementary schools

PDF

The sport of learning: the effect of college athletes' perception of identity on approach to learning

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

Asset Metadata

Creator Tran, Julia Nguyen (author)

Core Title Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/05/2018

Defense Date 02/28/2018

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

Tag Kindergarten,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogy,perception,teaching,technology integration

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Combs, Wayne (committee member), Crispen, Patrick (committee member)

Creator Email jjuliang@usc.edu,julianguyentran@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-490648

Unique identifier UC11268189

Identifier etd-TranJuliaN-6152.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-490648 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-TranJuliaN-6152.pdf

Dmrecord 490648

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Tran, Julia Nguyen

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