University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 1

Transformational Technology Practices in K-12 Schools: A Case Study

by

Carolyn E. Seaton

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 2016

Copyright 2016 Carolyn E. Seaton

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 2
Dedication
I am fortunate to have remarkable friends and family who have inspired me throughout
my life. This dissertation is dedicated to four people whose love, passion for life, zest for
learning, and courage changed me for the better. My childhood friend, Terri Clark Ryland, was
taken from us in 2007 at just 43 years old. It was our shared dream to complete doctorates. My
mother Jane was my first teacher and biggest cheerleader. She instilled a love of learning in me
that led to this achievement. My son Rick is my legacy to this world. I love him with all my
heart and could not be more proud of the man he has become. Finally, I owe my deepest
gratitude to my husband David, who believed in me and walked with me every step of the way.
His love supports and encourages me in every facet of my life.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 3
Acknowledgments
I express my heartfelt appreciation to my dissertation chair, Dr. Stuart Gothold, for his
guidance, support, expertise, and patience throughout the dissertation process. It was an honor to
be a member of his thematic dissertation team. I also thank Dr. Dennis Hocevar for serving on
my committee and providing his direction and insight. For roughly a decade, I have benefited
from the vision, wisdom, and leadership of my third committee member, Dr. Beverly Rohrer.
She is my role model and has pushed me to achieve what I never thought possible. Having her
serve on my committee has been a dream come true.
My sincere gratitude goes to the teachers, staff, and administrators who participated in
my research. Each of them trusted me to tell his or her story accurately. They gave unselfishly
of their time and provided me with amazing data and insight. They are outstanding educators
who have dedicated their professional lives to helping students beat the odds and succeed in
college, career, and life.
I express my thanks to the brilliant and funny Drs. Katherine Whittaker Stopp, Toni
Brown, Brett Geithman, and Rick Bagley for encouraging me to follow their paths and apply to
the doctoral program at USC. My experience during these past 3 years has been nothing short of
incredible, and my understanding of the teaching and learning process has deepened
immeasurably as a result of this journey.
Dr. Michael Matthews has the distinction of being both my friend and my boss. He
supported me throughout this program, and I cannot thank him enough for his understanding and
encouragement.
I appreciate the friendship of Dr. Karina Gerger more than she knows. She is incredibly
intelligent, talented, thoughtful, and beautiful inside and out.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 4
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 16
Conceptual Frameworks 17
Significance of the Study 18
Limitations and Delimitations 18
Limitations 18
Delimitations 19
Definition of Terms 20
Organization of the Dissertation 21
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 23
Background 24
Teaching and Learning 24
21st-Century Schools 25
Purpose of the Study 26
21st-Century Skills and Technology 26
Pedagogical Changes 27
Lack of Progress 29
Technology and Teachers’ Beliefs 30
Importance of the Change Process 31
Barriers to Technology Integration 33
Support for Technology Use 35
Professional Development 35
Leadership 38
Conceptual Frameworks for Technology Integration 39
Summary of the Literature 41
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 44
Research Questions 45
Research Design 47
Sample and Population 48
Access/Entry 50
Instrumentation 50
Document Review 51
Survey 52
Observations 53
Interviews 54
Data Collection 55
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 5
Validity and Reliability 59
Data Analysis 59
Ethical Considerations 62
Summary 62
Chapter Four: Results 63
Findings for Research Question 1 66
Technology Use Varies Based on Years of Experience 67
Student-Centered Instruction 69
Access to Technology Facilitates Organic Use 71
Findings for Research Question 2 73
Ongoing Professional Development 73
Supportive School Culture 75
Findings for Research Question 3 77
Access to Technology 77
Supportive School Culture 78
Obstacles to Technology Use 80
Findings for Research Question 4 83
Student-Centered Instruction 83
Technology’s Potential to Increase Student Learning 84
Conceptual Frameworks 86
Summary 88
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Recommendations 90
Summary of Findings 92
Student-Centered Instruction Cultivates Transformative Use of Technology 92
Ready Student Access to Technology Facilitates Its Organic Use 93
A Supportive School Culture Nurtures Teachers’ Transformative Use of
Technology 94
Implications for Practice 96
Recommendations for Future Research 97
Conclusions 99
References 100
Appendices
Appendix A: Document Review Matrix 107
Appendix B: Teacher Technology Survey 108
Appendix C: Classroom Observation Protocol 110
Appendix D: Interview Protocol 111
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey Responses to Statements Related to Research Question 1
(Student Learning) 68

Table 2: Survey Responses to Statements Related to Research Question 2
(Technology Skills) 76

Table 3: Survey Responses to Statements Related to Research Question 3
(Technology Support) 80

Table 4: Survey Responses to Statements Related to Research Question 4
(Technology Beliefs) 85
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 7
List of Figures
Figure 1: Framework for 21st-century learning 28
Figure 2: Mishra and Koehler’s technological pedagogical content knowledge framework 40
Figure 3: Puentadura’s SAMR model 41
Figure 4: Triangulation of data sources as implemented in this study 51
Figure 5: Creswell’s model for analysis of data in qualitative research 60
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 8
Abstract
This qualitative case study employed the SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification,
redefinition) and TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) models from the
research on integration of technology in K–12 settings to investigate the dynamics of a suburban
urban middle school designated as a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics)
academy that embraces technology in curriculum and instruction. This study was designed to
determine the extent to which educators’ applications of digital tools in the classroom affect
pedagogy, with particular emphasis on identifying factors that lead to maximizing student
learning. The research questions framing the study focused on current technology usage, teacher
acquisition of technology skills, support for technology use, and educators’ beliefs about
technology in the classroom. Data were collected through document analysis, teacher surveys,
lesson observations, and staff interviews and examined using Creswell’s multistep process for
data analysis. Findings revealed that student-centered instruction and a supportive school culture
are fundamental to transformative use of technology in the classroom. Furthermore, ready
student access to devices facilitates organic use of digital tools in the teaching and learning
process. This study contributes to extant research by focusing on a school site that claims
technology use as a cornerstone of its instructional program. The results provide K–12
educational leaders with significant factors to consider when implementing technology in
schools, including the importance of providing differentiated professional development for
teachers in the context of their classrooms, recruiting school leaders who support teacher
collaboration and risk taking, and shifting from teacher-centered to learner-centered classroom
environments.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 9
Chapter One: Introduction
21st-Century Elementary School is not your mother’s grade school. As you walk in a
fifth-grade classroom, you observe students in modular seating, arranged in groups of four or
five, hunched over their laptop computers, collaborating. There is a palpable buzz in the air.
When you ask a student about his group’s task, he tells you that they are creating a Prezi
presentation about the Transcontinental Railroad from the viewpoint of Chinese immigrants. He
explains that each group is researching online to analyze the building and completion of the
railroad from a different perspective: railroad owners, Native Americans, the press, or the
Chinese immigrant workers. There is not a textbook in sight. Tomorrow, he elaborates, all of
the groups will present their Prezi to the entire class. Your curiosity is piqued. You are
determined to learn whether other classrooms at the school are like this one, so you decide to
investigate a first-grade class. When you enter, you look to your right and observe 6-year-old
students sitting around a circular table, each using a tablet computer. A little girl eagerly asks if
you want to see her movie, and you cannot resist. She has created a screencast on the iPad using
the application Explain Everything. The screencast displays her original drawing of a plant and
its parts and includes her voiceover describing each part and its important role. You thank her
and move to another corner of the room to view a small group of students who are also using
tablets. As you glance at their devices, you observe that each student is reading a digital book
about plants, but the texts are not the same. The teacher approaches and shares that the books are
differentiated to meet each student’s assessed independent reading level. On the opposite side of
the classroom, students are creating a flyer on desktop computers to invite their parents to a class
garden harvest celebration. The students are so engaged that most are unaware of your presence.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 10
As you reflect on what you have just witnessed in both of these classrooms, you are mesmerized.
This is what 21st-century education is all about.
At 21st-Century Elementary School (pseudonym), learning is student centered and
authentic. Rather than being the keepers of all knowledge, teachers are facilitators of student
learning who harness technology as a powerful weapon in their arsenal. Instead of memorizing
facts, students engage in problem solving, creation, and critical thinking (Partnership for 21st
Century Skills [P21], 2009). However, the reality is while classrooms similar to those described
at 21st Century Elementary School exist, they are the exception and not the rule. Although the
world has changed dramatically, most schools have not (Wagner, 2010).
Tony Wagner (2010) coined the term global achievement gap to describe what he called
the chasm between what the majority of schools are teaching students and the knowledge and
skills that they actually need to be successful in today’s information age, such as the ability to
communicate, collaborate, adapt, solve problems, innovate, access and analyze information, and
imagine. The amount of available information has increased dramatically and so have students’
abilities to access it (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], 2010). Today’s students must be
able to use, process, and create knowledge from that information (Vockley, 2007).
In order to provide students with the knowledge and skills that they need to be successful,
we must make comprehensive use of technology in every facet of the educational system (P21,
2009; Vockley, 2007). Student mastery of the “3 Rs” is nowhere near sufficient for success in
college, career, and life (P21, 2009). USDOE (2010) has noted that students need the
opportunity to learn using digital tools that professionals employ in a multitude of careers,
including a variety of programs and applications for the purposes of researching, collaborating,
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 11
creating, and communicating. Providing students with these experiences in school equips them
with the skills that employers will seek from them when they graduate (Wagner, 2010).
Because of the impetus created by online testing of Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) in 2015, schools across the country have acquired digital devices in record numbers,
significantly reducing the barrier of access to technology (California Department of Education
[CDE], 2013). Although some teachers have embraced use of these new digital devices in their
classrooms, others have eschewed them entirely (Pahomov, 2014). Ertmer and Ottenbreit-
Leftwich (2013) found that teachers who implement technology typically do so at the lowest
levels of the revised Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al., 2001). Implementation of digital tools
at less rigorous levels of student cognitive demand may be due to educators’ focus on the device
itself instead of how it can be used to transform pedagogy (Pahomov, 2014). Now that students
have greater access to classroom technology than ever before, it is critical to understand the
potential impact of digital tools on teaching and learning.
Background of the Problem
Public education is under pressure to regain America’s competitive edge (USDOE,
2010). The average U.S. high school graduation rate, 70%, is behind those of Japan, Denmark,
Italy, and Poland; 40% of all U.S. students entering college are required to take a remedial class
(Wagner, 2010). As of 2010, the United States ranked ninth of 36 developed countries in the
percentage of citizens completing college (Wagner, 2010). The Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA) is a system of assessments in mathematics, science, and reading that
measures the performance of 15-year-old students in 65 education systems across the globe
(Kelly, Nord, Jenkins, Chan, & Kastberg, 2013). On the 2012 PISA, U.S. students ranked
approximately 26th in mathematics, 21st in science, and 17th in reading (Walker, 2013).
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 12
Repositioning the United States as a leader among nations requires “replacing brawnpower with
brainpower” (Trilling & Fadel, 2009, p. 15). A critical key to meeting that requirement is
ensuring that technology is leveraged in schools to engage students in meaningful learning of the
21st-century skills required in a knowledge economy, including critical thinking, complex
problem solving, collaboration, and multimedia communication (USDOE, 2010). The United
States must harness technology to assess students on the skills that matter, not rote memorization
of facts, and provide teachers with the data needed to personalize instruction to meet each
student’s needs (USDOE, 2010). To date, however, technology has been implemented in the
nation’s classrooms primarily in ways that maintain traditional pedagogy rather than transform it
(Cuban, 2009).
K-12 education in the United States faces numerous demands in addition to competing in
the global milieu. Data regarding the student composition of an average American K-12 school
may be surprising. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 13% of
the K-12 student body is comprised of students with disabilities (Snyder & Dillow, 2012). In a
typical fourth-grade class, 48% of the students come from low-income families and qualify to
participate in the federal free/reduced-price lunch program (Aud, Fox, & KewalRamani, 2010).
The percentage of K-12 public school students who are English Language Learners is over 9%;
in California, that percentage surpasses 23% (Kena et al., 2014). During the 1st decade of the
21st century, the percentage of both White and African American students enrolled in U.S. K-12
public schools dropped. From 2001 to 2011, White students decreased from 60% to 52% of the
total K-12 population, while African American students experienced a smaller decline, from 17%
to 16% (Kena et al., 2014). Conversely, public school enrollment of Hispanic students has risen
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 13
during that same decade from 17% to 24% and is predicted to increase to 30% by 2023 (Kena et
al., 2014).
The aforementioned data demonstrate the diversity and complexity of today’s archetypal
American classroom. Despite the challenges, teachers are expected to meet the needs of every
student on their class roster. One promising solution to address the multiplicity of student needs
rests with technology. Educational technology can enrich experiences, increase opportunities to
learn, differentiate content, and level the playing field for students of color, English Language
Learners, students with disabilities, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students (Malcom,
2013). Providing educators with sufficient technology tools and effective professional
development facilitates teachers’ abilities to challenge students at the appropriate level in any
content area. Assistive technology has delivered promising results in the field of special
education by facilitating access to the curriculum for students facing sensory and/or motor
challenges or other disabilities (Malcom, 2013). Moreover, computers provide nonjudgmental,
immediate feedback and allow students to progress at their own pace (Malcom, 2013).
Applications such as Google Translate and computer programs for learning languages such as
Rosetta Stone assist English Language Learners in accessing the curriculum while they are
simultaneously learning English. Parents of socioeconomically disadvantaged students often
lack the knowledge and/or ability to provide their children with the same breadth of experiences
and support as students from more affluent backgrounds (Malcom, 2013). Access to digital
devices can mitigate this gap. Computers can take students on virtual field trips to places across
the globe and, through open source programs such as Khan Academy, provide assistance on
schoolwork when adults may not be available or able to help.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 14
By conducting individual case studies of K-12 schools in California that embrace
technology, members of a thematic dissertation team at the University of Southern California
(USC) sought to uncover the dynamics of technology implementation and integration that affect
teaching and learning. By describing these dynamics in a rich, thick narrative, the researchers
hoped that their findings would provide guidance to education practitioners in maximizing
technology’s potential to increase learning for all students.
Statement of the Problem
Technology is a tool that can increase student collaboration, communication, critical
thinking, and creativity. Although the presence of K-12 classroom technology has increased, its
integration and implementation in curriculum and instruction are inconsistent. This researcher
conducted a review of the literature to learn what is known about best practices in technology
integration in K-12 schools and found that several themes emerged consistently.
One of the first prominent themes reflected in the literature was technology’s role in
facilitating student mastery of the 21st-century skills necessary to be successful in college and
career (Vockley, 2007). Another focal area was teachers’ beliefs about technology and the
subsequent effect on their use of digital tools in the classroom (Ertmer, 2005; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013;
Lowther, Inan, Ross, & Strahl, 2012). Several studies identified real and perceived barriers to
incorporating technology in K-12 schools, including lack of access, training, support, and
leadership (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Ertmer et al., 2012; Hew & Brush, 2007; Mishra & Koehler,
2006). Because students frequently use classroom technology for “drill and kill” and
productivity tasks, the USDOE and others have examined technology integration practices that
transform pedagogy (Labbo & Place, 2010; Lowther et al., 2012; USDOE, 2010). Further
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 15
research in the area of K-12 technology has focused on the importance of providing professional
development and ongoing support for teachers that employs best practices for adult learning,
including modeling, hands-on applications, and opportunities to collaborate with colleagues (An
& Reigeluth, 2011; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Kopcha, 2012; Lowther et al., 2012;
Mishra & Koehler, 2006). An examination of the research revealed two theoretical frameworks,
both of which played a prominent role in this qualitative case study. TPACK is a framework for
examining three types of educational knowledge and their interactions: content knowledge,
pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge. Ideally, the teacher plans instruction that
results in the intersection of these three areas of knowledge to maximize learning (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). SAMR stands for substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. It
is a hierarchical model developed to assist teachers in evaluating how they integrate technology
into their lessons (Puentadura, 2015).
A review of the research on technology use in K-12 schools revealed several important
themes to consider when implementing digital tools in the classroom; however, there is still a
need to understand dynamics of schools that claim to embrace technology and the extent to
which their technology practices truly improve teaching and learning.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K-12 school that is
actively integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction. The CCSS,
adopted by the California State Board of Education in 2010 and in more than 40 other states,
incorporate technology skills as early as kindergarten (CDE, 2013). Throughout the CCSS,
students are expected to be able to use technology to access and evaluate information and to
create and share products that demonstrate their mastery of the standards. The new assessments
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 16
for measuring student progress on the CCSS are online and computer adaptive. California
belongs to a consortium of states known as the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
(SBAC). These states share online resources for students, teachers, administrators, parents, and
others to ensure that all stakeholders understand the purpose and format of these assessments.
Because of the prominence of technology in the CCSS and the online format of the assessments,
school districts have purchased numerous desktops, laptops, and/or tablets to meet the demand.
With this increased access to devices comes the responsibility to use them for students in ways
that produce the greatest return on investment in the form of student learning.
This study is one of 10 qualitative case studies conducted by members of a thematic
dissertation team at USC. Each researcher studied the dynamics of a separate K-12 school that
purported to embrace technology, with a particular focus on the school’s technology
implementation and integration practices. The dissertation team collaboratively generated the
research design to guide each case study, including the research questions, instrumentation, and
data collection protocols. The team selected Creswell’s (2013) model to provide a systematic
method for data analysis. The team elected to implement document review, lesson observations,
teacher surveys, and interviews as the data collection instruments. Using four tools to collect
data provided each researcher the ability to compare collected information and determine
similarities and differences. Crosschecking the data from the perspective of each tool is known
as triangulation, and it adds to the credibility of qualitative research (Merriam, 2009).
Research Questions
The thematic dissertation team developed the following four research questions to guide
their qualitative case studies, and each team member conducted a case study at a school that met
the agreed upon site selection criteria.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 17
1. How do educators at School X integrate technology to support students’ learning?
2. To what factors do educators at School X attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at School X provided support for technology integration
and implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
School X?
Conceptual Frameworks
Two conceptual frameworks provided important lenses through which the researcher
interpreted data and constructed meaning: TPACK and SAMR (Mishra & Koehler, 2006;
Puentadura, 2015). Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK model describes the interdependence of a
teacher’s content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and technological knowledge. The goal
for teachers is to design lessons that result in the intersection of all three types of knowledge,
thereby providing students with optimal content that is improved by technology and instructional
strategies, offering students technology tools that facilitate engaging and effective content and
pedagogy, and incorporating effective instructional strategies that bring the content to life and
harness technology’s abilities to foster student-centered, authentic learning (Mishra & Koehler,
2006).
Puentadura (2015) developed the SAMR model to facilitate teachers’ assessment of the
levels at which they are incorporating technology into their instruction. The model is
hierarchical, with the lowest levels of substitution and augmentation describing enhancements
that provide little or no functional change in the learning task (Puentadura, 2015). The higher
levels, modification and redefinition, describe significant redesign of the learning task in ways
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 18
that transform teaching and learning (Puentadura, 2015). This model facilitated analysis of data
to determine whether technology use as described or observed required high levels of student
cognitive demand.
Significance of the Study
While many studies have examined aspects of technology integration in the K-12
educational arena, there is a need for research that focuses specifically on how technology
practices affect teaching and learning in a school that purports to embrace technology.
Moreover, research is also lacking in the area of transformative K-12 technology practices.
School districts in California and across the country are purchasing technological devices in
record numbers to facilitate teaching and assessment based on the CCSS. Identifying factors that
influence the effects of digital devices on teaching and learning is critical to ensuring that limited
district and school site funds are spent judiciously (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Kim et
al., 2013). Furthermore, because this study was one of 10 qualitative case studies conducted by
members of a thematic dissertation team, consistent findings across the studies could help to
steer future research and provide useful information to educational practitioners in the form of a
rich, thick description that is easily understood (Merriam, 2009).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Creswell (2013) defined limitations as factors beyond the control of the researcher. This
qualitative case study was conducted at one school site, creating a limitation in generalizability
of results. Because the unit of analysis was a single school, South Bay Middle School (SBMS),
there was a relatively small sample size of 37 teachers, one technology assistant, and two
administrators. The research for this case study was conducted primarily during the course of 3
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 19
months and may not provide a true picture of technology implementation and integration at the
school site. Two data collection instruments, surveys and interviews, relied on self-reporting and
therefore the honesty of the participating educators. Time constraints of the study required
limiting the numbers of teachers observed and teachers, staff, and administrators interviewed.
By including some staff and excluding others in these two phases of data collection, potentially
important data may have been omitted. Finally, researcher bias is a limitation for this study.
Qualitative research is dependent on the researcher’s interpretations of the data (Merriam, 2009).
Delimitations
Delimitations are characteristics that limit the scope of a study’s inquiry (Creswell,
2013). By focusing on a school site that claims to embrace technology, the results of the study
may not be indicative of the broader K-12 educational landscape. The literature review was
delimited primarily to research conducted since 2007. Perhaps including research on technology
implementation and integration in K-12 schools prior to 2007 would have yielded important
insights that could have added to the study’s findings.
Another delimitation of this study was the fact that the researcher conducted six teacher
observations and interviewed six educators at the school. Increasing the number of participants
for data collection through observations and/or interviews would have provided additional data
to substantiate or refute the findings. The participants for this study were all employees of South
Bay School District (pseudonym) who served as teachers, assistants, or administrators at SBMS.
Data were not collected from students or their parents, thus omitting the perspectives of these
important school stakeholders.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 20
Definition of Terms
The following terms are defined as they are used in this dissertation:
21st-century skills: Real-world skills necessary to meet the needs of a global economy
and prepare all students for college, career, and life (P21, 2009).
Academic Performance Index (API): A single number between 200 and 1000 designed to
measure a school’s, district’s, or numerically significant group’s performance level based on
statewide testing. Since 2014, API results have not been calculated, pending a redesign of the
system to accommodate the new Smarter Balanced Assessments in English language arts and
mathematics (CDE, 2013).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Standards for K-12 students in English language
arts/literacy and mathematics that are designed to prepare students for college and career. They
have been adopted by more than 40 states (CDE, 2013).
Differentiation: The process of modifying curriculum and instruction according to
content, process, and/or product to meet students’ unique learning needs (National Association
for Gifted Children, n.d.).
English Language Learner (ELL): A student who is in the process of acquiring English
and has a first language other than English (USDOE, 2010).
Professional development: A variety of training or coaching opportunities for the purpose
of improving teacher effectiveness (USDOE, 2010).
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC): One of two nationwide assessment
consortia that have developed online assessments to measure student proficiency on the CCSS.
California is one of 21 SBAC states. SBAC assessments were piloted in 2014 and launched in
2015 (CDE, 2013).
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 21
SAMR: A model developed by Ruben Puentadura (2015) to provide a conceptual
framework for instructional technology implementation. The model is hierarchical and
delineates technology integration into four levels: substitution, augmentation, modification, and
redefinition. The lower two levels, substitution and augmentation, are considered enhancements.
The top levels of the model, modification and redefinition, are considered transformative to
teaching and learning. In the highest stage, redefinition, students use technology to produce
tasks that would otherwise be impossible.
Tablet computer: A portable device that features touchscreen displays and applications
(apps) for productivity, education, utilities, entertainment, and other functions. The tablet
features a virtual keyboard for typing. The first tablet computer was the iPad, launched in 2010
(USDOE, 2010).
Technology integration: Incorporation of technology into curriculum and/or instruction as
a tool to enhance learning (Labbo & Place, 2010).
TPACK: A theoretical framework for understanding technology implementation across
three knowledge areas: TK is technological knowledge, CK is content knowledge, and PK is
pedagogical knowledge. TPACK represents the interaction and interdependence of
technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
U.S. Department of Education (USDOE): The federal agency responsible for national
involvement in education.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. This first chapter provides an overview
of the study, including the background of the problem, statement of the problem, and purpose of
the study. Chapter 2 examines the current literature on implementation and integration of
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 22
technology in K-12 schools as it relates to the study’s four research questions. Chapter 3
provides an overview of and rationale for the study’s research methodology and describes the
instrumentation, data collection protocols, and data analysis model employed. Chapter 4 reports
the results of the study as they relate to the research questions, literature, and conceptual
frameworks. Chapter 5 contains the summary of findings, implications for practice, and
recommendations for future research.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 23
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
In the 21st century, technology is ubiquitous in all facets of life. However, K-12
education has lagged behind other sectors of society in technology integration, creating a
disconnect between what students experience within and outside of school (Taylor & Fratto,
2012). In an attempt to provide students with needed 21st-century skills and to meet the
demands of online testing of new content standards, school districts across California and the
United States have purchased tablet, laptop, and desktop computers, resulting in greatly
increased student and teacher access to technology in many classrooms (Ertmer et al., 2012;
Taylor & Fratto, 2012). A critical question for educators is the extent to which greater access to
technology in classrooms has positively influenced teaching and learning (Labbo & Place, 2010).
This chapter provides a review of literature to determine what the research states about
instructional technology integration practices in K-12 schools and concludes with suggestions as
to how this case study adds to current research.
Examination of the literature as it relates to the research questions of this study resulted
in the emergence of several key themes. Among these are the importance of technology in
facilitating student mastery of the 21st-century skills necessary to be successful in college and
career (P21, 2009; Taylor & Fratto, 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009) and the impact of teacher
beliefs on their technology integration practices (Ertmer, 2005; Ertmer et al., 2012; Kim et al.,
2013; Lowther et al., 2012). The literature also provided rich discussion on the concepts of real
and perceived barriers to teachers’ technology use in the classroom (An & Reigeluth, 2011;
Ertmer et al., 2012; Hew & Brush, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006), as well as elements of
instructional technology integration that transform teaching and learning (Labbo & Place, 2010;
Lowther et al., 2012; USDOE, 2010). The final major themes discovered in the research on K-
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 24
12 instructional technology implementation are professional development and support and the
use of pedagogical frameworks for incorporation of technology in the classroom (An &
Reigeluth, 2011; Hew & Brush, 2007; Kim et al., 2013; Lambert & Gong, 2010; Mishra &
Koehler, 2006; Romrell, Kidder, & Wood, 2014). In the following pages, each of these key
themes and related research findings is investigated in detail in an effort to understand what
research has revealed about the integration of technology in the classroom and the unanswered
questions that remain.
Background
Teaching and Learning
From 1960 to the present, technology in education has progressed from chalkboards and
filmstrips to interactive whiteboards and one-to-one devices (Hew & Brush, 2007). With nearly
every technological innovation in modern society, educators have considered its potential
applications in the classroom (Hew & Brush, 2007). Classroom technological tools of the recent
past such as overhead projectors were fairly uniform and simple to operate; however, today’s
technology is more complex and constantly evolving (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Computers
such as the Apple IIe were introduced in some U.S. classrooms in the 1980s. Although decades
have passed, researchers consistently find integration of modern computers in today’s classrooms
focused primarily on enhancement of traditional pedagogy (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2013). Computers are typically used to deliver content rather than truly being assimilated into
classroom lessons (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). Lowther et al. (2012) corroborated this
finding in their observance of almost 10,000 K-12 classrooms in the United States. They found
computers implemented in ways that did not require students to engage in higher-order thinking
skills, such as repetitive practice of facts (Lowther et al., 2012). Given the aforementioned
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 25
findings, it is not surprising that one of the major critiques of technology in education is that
teachers sometimes implement digital tools in artificial, rather than meaningful, ways (Lowther
et al., 2012).
According to Rueda (2011), high levels of student engagement lead to motivation, and
student motivation and learning are deeply intertwined. When technology is implemented as an
add-on or in ways that involve low levels of cognitive demand, students are not likely to be
engaged at high levels (Rueda, 2011). For most 21st-century students, technology is a vital
component of their lives. When they are not using digital tools in authentic, engaging ways at
school, they experience dissonance between how they employ technology in the real world and
how it is utilized in the classroom (An & Reigeluth, 2011).
21st-Century Schools
The global society connects people around the world economically, politically, and
ecologically (Saavedra & Opfer, 2012). To prepare students for their future, Lambert and Gong
(2010) and Saavedra and Opfer (2012) recommended changing the way students are taught to
facilitate mastery of the critical skills needed to be successful in the 21st century. This shift in
teaching is described as moving away from the role of teacher as knowledge repository to
facilitator of student learning (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). One of
Saavedra and Opfer’s (2012) nine key recommendations for changing the stand and deliver
model of education was that teachers adapt their approach to “exploit technology to support
student learning” (p. 11). Specifically, they suggested that technology be harnessed in the
classroom to engage students in authentic problem solving, higher-order thinking skills, and
multiple forms of communication (Saavedra & Opfer, 2012).
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 26
According to Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013), the fundamental skills required in
the 21st century are unlikely to change, but the devices used to acquire those skills will continue
to evolve and progress. Empowering Learning (CDE, 2014), California’s plan for educational
technology, delineates the 21st-century skills that students must master in order to be successful
in college and career. Among these skills are communication, critical thinking, creativity, and
collaboration, also known as the “4Cs” (P21, 2009). California’s plan notes the importance of
adapting to change, problem solving, engaging in self-reflection, and working across disciplines
in a knowledge-based society (CDE, 2014). An and Reigeluth (2011) added that, in the
information age, people should be able to process increasing amounts of information and use it to
solve multifaceted challenges.
Purpose of the Study
21st-Century Skills and Technology
In the first 15 years of the 21st century, we have witnessed major economic shifts, a
changing workforce, demographic fluctuations, international competition in education, and an
increased technological presence in nearly every career (Lambert & Gong, 2010). Although
these and other segments of society have experienced major changes, in the majority of school
districts across the country, the K-12 educational system still reflects the industrial age, with its
bell system signaling students to move to the next discrete subject, its calendar designed to
support farming, and its pedagogy based on transmitting information from teacher to student
(Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Lowther, Inan, Strahl, and Ross (2008) stated
that data from 400 employers showed that students entering the workplace after high school were
not equipped with the majority of the 21st-century skills necessary to be successful. Tony
Wagner (2010) called this phenomenon the global achievement gap: Students are not being
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 27
taught the skills required of them by the global society into which they will graduate. According
to Wagner (2010), even the highest-achieving schools across the United States are failing to
provide students with proficiencies that are most important to be successful in the workplace and
in society in general.
P21 developed a framework to describe the fundamental competencies and support
systems that students need to be successful in career and life in a global society (P21, 2009).
Figure 1 displays these competencies as inner and outer arches and support systems as concentric
rings at the base. The innermost arch extends beyond the traditional definition of the “3Rs” to
include the core subjects of language arts, world languages, arts, mathematics, economics,
science, geography, history, government, and civics (P21, 2009). The 21st-century
interdisciplinary themes described by P21 (2009) are global awareness and literacy in the areas
of finance, civics, health, and the environment. Building on the core subjects and 21st-century
themes, the outermost arch illustrates the skills, concepts, and proficiencies that students must
master to thrive in a global economy (P21, 2009). Included prominently in the framework are
information, media, and technology skills (P21, 2009). According to P21 (2009), in order to be
successful in a knowledge-based, global economy, students must be able to employ technological
tools to locate, manage, incorporate, and synthesize information. The concentric circles at the
base of the figure illustrate the systems required to support and sustain student mastery of 21st-
century skills (P21, 2009).
Pedagogical Changes
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) stressed that effective pedagogy for today’s
students requires effective implementation of technology. Labbo and Place (2010) envisioned
classrooms in which technology provides opportunities for student learning that were not
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 28
possible previously. In these classrooms, students choose from a variety of technological tools
that provide them instant access to a wealth of information that they must analyze for accuracy
and bias and synthesize into key elements (Labbo & Place, 2010). These technological tools
support students’ collaboration and communication with peers and teachers and provide
numerous options for publication (Labbo & Place, 2010). However, while the potential for
technology in education is widely conceded, it has not yet been realized (Saavedra & Opfer,
2012).

Figure 1. Framework for 21st-century learning. Source: P21 Framework Definitions, by
Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009, retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/
P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
In the field of K-12 education, several researchers have advocated changing current
pedagogy to provide a better match between what is taught and the skills that students will need
to be successful in their world. Mishra and Koehler (2006) asserted that the introduction of new
technologies into the classroom can be disruptive and requires educators to rethink their
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 29
instructional strategies and the concepts and skills that students need to master. Student access to
the Internet, for example, results in factual knowledge being available at their fingertips (Mishra
& Koehler, 2006). Su and Bay (2009) claimed that effective use of technology in K-12
education necessitates important shifts in the ways educators teach and students learn. One key
shift, according to Su and Bay (2009) and Christensen, Horn, and Johnson (2008), is to move to
student-centered learning of relevant content that is differentiated to meet each student’s unique
learning needs. The focus is not on the technology that students use; rather, it is on the
instructional practices that best facilitate student learning (Su & Bay, 2009). In addition, Su and
Bay (2009) claimed that effective use of technology in the classroom requires changes in the
roles of teacher and student, the way student mastery is assessed, the manner in which
professional development is provided for teachers, and the educational setting itself.
Lack of Progress
While many researchers of K-12 educational practices have advocated fundamental
changes in teaching and learning to meet the requirements of the 21st century, there has not been
substantial progress in that direction (Cuban, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). An and Reigeluth
(2011) surveyed more than 100 teachers in Texas and Arkansas and found that technology was
predominantly used for lower-level tasks such as word processing and drill and practice. Cuban
(2009) has described technology as a “benign addition” in today’s classroom because it has been
used primarily to supplement existing pedagogy instead of resulting in significant changes in
how educators teach and how students learn. The literature provides potential explanations as to
why technology’s impact on education to date has been less than noteworthy (Labbo & Place,
2010). Lambert and Gong (2010) maintained that many educators have a narrow view of how
technology can and should be harnessed in the classroom. Basic computer skills provide initial
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 30
access to the digital world, but they are not the desired end game (Lambert & Gong, 2010).
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) added that today’s students are using technology as a
delivery tool rather than engaging with it to access learning. Additional sections of this chapter
delve into potential explanations from the literature as to why technology’s impact in education
has lagged behind other sectors such as business, health, and entertainment (CDE, 2014;
Christensen et al., 2008; Labbo & Place, 2010).
Technology and Teachers’ Beliefs
Several researchers have focused on teachers’ beliefs as they relate to use of technology
in the classroom. According to Pajares (1992), beliefs are more powerful than knowledge.
Unless people believe that their actions will produce a desired result, they have little motivation
to persist when faced with adversity (Pajares, 1992). In his seminal work, Bandura (1993)
postulated that one’s beliefs about one’s abilities, or self-efficacy, greatly affect the ability to
learn. It follows from Pajares’s and Bandura’s research that, when teachers believe that the use
of technology in the classroom can have a positive impact on student learning and believe that
they possess the necessary skills in technology and are supported by colleagues and leadership,
they are more likely to persevere through implementation challenges (Bandura, 1993; Lowther et
al., 2012; Pajares, 1992).
Lowther et al. (2012) found that educators who held positive beliefs about technology’s
potential and who were skilled in using digital tools in the classroom tended to use technology
for student production and learning more frequently than their peers. Data from Perrotta’s
(2013) survey of nearly 700 secondary teachers revealed that the teachers agreed that digital
technology provides a substantial benefit to their pedagogy, particularly by increasing the
content and resources available to students. However, the study participants did not associate
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 31
use of digital technology with deeper student understanding of content (Perrotta, 2013). Through
their research, Kim et al. (2013) determined that educators with similar training and adequate
knowledge of computers nevertheless varied in their implementation of technology in the
classroom. One explanation for this variance, according to Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich
(2013) and Kim et al. (2013), is that teachers’ beliefs about how students learn and their
understanding of effective instructional strategies affect their integration of technology in the
classroom. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) stated that educators who run a more
traditional, teacher-centered classroom tend to limit students’ use of instructional technology and
those who favor a more student-centered approach provide more opportunities for students to use
technology in authentic ways. Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by
Technology, the USDOE national plan for educational technology, corroborates this perspective.
It states that, when teachers who possess a student-centered viewpoint implement technology in
their classrooms, they are more likely to offer engaging and transformational learning
experiences (USDOE, 2010).
Importance of the Change Process
To harness technology effectively in schools, Su and Bay (2009) advocated systemic
change. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) defined this type of change as second-order or
“deep” change that requires a major shift in direction, as well as new ways of thinking and
operating. According to Su and Bay (2009), education is a highly complex system with many
interconnected parts. If one changes a fundamental component of the educational program, other
components will need to undergo fundamental changes as well in order for the initial change to
be sustainable and successful (Su & Bay, 2009).
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 32
When implementing a deep change in the classroom, such as a technological innovation,
incorporating teacher voice is critical (Hew & Brush, 2007; Kim et al., 2013). Reflecting on his
research of schools in the Silicon Valley, Cuban (2009) remarked that school administrators
seldom included teachers in the decision-making process for purchasing computers or in the
planning for how to deploy them in the classroom. Instead, the devices just appeared in teachers’
classrooms with little or no preparation provided (Cuban, 2009). In addition to incorporating
teachers’ perspectives into the change process, Kim et al. (2013) and Marzano et al. (2005)
stressed the importance of administrators being actively involved in supporting and monitoring
implementation of an innovation.
Many researchers have described change as a process with stages of development.
Prochaska and Norcross’s change model (2001) delineates six stages: precontemplation,
contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and termination. Applying this model to the
integration of an educational technology initiative, Su and Bay (2009) stated that educators at the
precontemplation stage believed that their current instructional practices were effective without
incorporating technology, and they required additional information to understand why infusing
technology into instruction is important. In the contemplation phase, teachers gain an awareness
of the need to employ technology in the classroom but have not yet committed to doing so
(Prochaska & Norcross, 2001). The third stage, preparation, signals teachers’ intention to
incorporate technology in the very near future (Prochaska & Norcross, 2001). At the action
stage, teachers have changed their behavior to adopt the use of technology in the classroom. To
be successful, behavioral changes that occur in the action stage typically require time,
commitment, and support (Su & Bay, 2009; Taylor & Fratto, 2012). Maintenance, the fifth
stage, is the period during which teachers who have implemented technology reflect on and
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 33
refine the growth that they have made during the action phase. The final phase, termination,
refers to teachers having incorporated technology into the classroom to the desired level, with
high self-efficacy and low likelihood of reverting to the behaviors of the precontemplation stage
(Prochaska & Norcross, 2001).
Depending on their background, experience, and beliefs, teachers at the same school will
belong to different stages of the change process when implementing an innovation (Su & Bay,
2009). Therefore, they will need differentiated support to meet their specific needs and move
them forward in the process. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) shared that schools that
have implemented technology initiatives successfully have provided ample resources,
concentrated on transforming teaching and learning in conjunction with integrating the
technology, mentored teachers’ technology skills within the context of their own classrooms,
supplied ongoing support, and provided time for teacher collaboration.
Hew and Brush (2007) and Su and Bay (2009) emphasized the importance of creating a
shared school vision for effective use of technology. This technology plan delineates the actions
required to implement the vision, including a scope and sequence for technology use at all grade
levels (Hew & Brush, 2007). When a plan for technology integration is created, adopted, and
monitored at a school site, it is easier to identify gaps between where teachers are and where they
need to be in relationship to the school’s vision for technology.
Barriers to Technology Integration
The education sector has not yet integrated technology to the same degree as other sectors
of society (Wagner, 2010). The literature highlights several potential barriers to technology
implementation in the classroom that may provide insight into this discrepancy. Ertmer (1999)
categorized these barriers as either first or second order. First-order barriers are those that are
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 34
external to the educator and over which he/she has little or no influence, including resources,
training, and support. Ertmer (1999) defined second-order barriers as internal to the teacher,
such as beliefs, knowledge, and proficiencies. Specific examples of first-order barriers include
lack of access to Internet, Wi-Fi, or devices (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Kim et al., 2013). Hew and
Brush (2007) found that lack of resources such as hardware, time, and technology support was
the most common impediment to technology implementation in the classroom. Recent research
has demonstrated marked improvement in addressing first-order barriers, specifically due to
improved access to Internet-connected devices in the nation’s classrooms (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2013). In California, some of the state’s largest school districts have acquired
substantial numbers of tablets or other devices in preparation for online assessments (CDE,
2014). However, Su and Bay (2009) cautioned that surmounting first-order barriers does not
guarantee that teachers will employ technology effectively.
According to Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013), the second-order barriers are the
real gatekeepers to effective technology integration. When first-order barriers are eradicated,
many teachers are still unable to integrate technology successfully (Su & Bay, 2009). Second-
order barriers are intrinsic factors that are deeply embedded in a teacher’s educational
philosophy and are therefore less easily identifiable (Ertmer, 2005). Lambert and Gong (2010)
claimed that, for educators to succeed in implementing digital tools in the classroom, they must
believe that they are capable of using them in ways that result in increased student learning.
An and Reigeluth (2011) found the current climate of standardized testing to be a barrier
to effective use of technology in the classroom. Until recently, the assessments administered in
most states have not been consistent with the student-centered instructional approach to
technology integration advocated throughout the literature (Christensen et al., 2008; Su & Bay,
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 35
2009). State departments of education and legislators will undoubtedly expect to see a return on
their large investment in technology in the form of improved student assessment data
(Christensen et al., 2008). However, the data may not show improvement unless the assessments
test the concepts and skills in the manner in which they are taught (Su & Bay, 2009).
Hew and Brush (2007) discussed the relationships among barriers to technology
integration. To illustrate, teachers’ technological skills are affected by their beliefs about
technology’s potential to affect student learning. If the barriers are interconnected, removing one
may positively affect others (Hew & Brush, 2007). Lowther et al. (2008) conducted a study of
Michigan’s Freedom to Learn one-to-one technology initiative that attempted to address barriers
to technology integration. They observed nearly 600 classrooms, surveyed almost 400 teachers
and 6,000 students, and performed detailed analysis of assessment data. Their findings
supported that removing barriers to technology access, providing consistent support, improving
teachers’ knowledge and skills, and addressing their beliefs about the potential of technology to
affect student learning resulted in more positive teacher attitudes regarding implementation of
technology and increased teachers’ confidence in their abilities to use computers (Lowther et al.,
2008).
Support for Technology Use
Professional Development
The literature shows that professional development can be highly effective in supporting
teachers’ use of technology in the classroom if certain elements are present (Kopcha, 2012;
Lowther et al., 2012). Lowther et al. (2012) investigated Michigan’s Freedom to Learn one-to-
one laptop initiative to examine its effect on teaching practices and student learning. This
initiative paired implementation of one-to-one laptops with extensive teacher professional
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 36
development. The researchers surveyed 380 Michigan teachers, conducted 258 hours of
unscheduled classroom observations, and analyzed student performance data. During random
classroom observations, they witnessed 10.5% of teachers implementing computers in low-level
ways but more than 70% using the laptops in “meaningful” or “somewhat meaningful” ways,
including activities that were problem based and required students to engage in critical thinking
(Lowther et al., 2012).
Kopcha (2012) conducted a case study at an elementary school to examine the effects of
2 years of situated professional development on 18 teachers’ perceptions of barriers to
technology integration and on their instructional practices with technology. The study’s methods
included surveys, interviews, and observations in an effort to triangulate results. He found that
technology mentors played a significant role in supporting elements that facilitate long-term
changes in teachers’ integration of technology in instruction. He observed that, a year after
teachers had received situated professional development by a mentor teacher, their
implementation of technology in the classroom was highly student centered, and their students
engaged in problem solving and critical thinking tasks frequently (Kopcha, 2012).
While the studies by Kopcha (2012) and Lowther et al. (2012) highlighted that positive
educational outcomes can occur when educational technology initiatives include systematic,
ongoing professional development for teachers, the literature demonstrates that most technology
sessions for teachers are lacking key components (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2013; Kim et al., 2013). An and Reigeluth (2011) stated that teacher inservice training
is often of a “one-size-fits-all” variety rather than tailored to each participant. In addition,
technology professional development typically focuses on teachers’ isolated technical skills
rather than on how to apply new digital tools in the classroom to engage students in deep,
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 37
meaningful learning (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). Mishra and Koehler (2006) designated this type of training as a “leap of faith”
approach because it is expected that teachers will take the knowledge and skills of how to work
digital tools and apply them in their instructional repertoire. According to Ertmer and
Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013), teachers feel more able to use computers in the classroom to
complete administrative tasks than for instructional purposes. The literature also shows that
much of the professional development on technology offered to teachers fails to provide time for
hands-on application of the concepts and skills in the context of the content that they teach (An
& Reigeluth, 2011; Hew & Brush, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
The literature provides several recommendations to improve teacher training. As part of
his social cognitive theory, Bandura (1993) recommended vicarious experiences to observe
successful others. Applied to technology integration in the classroom, teachers would view
colleagues modeling effective pedagogy that incorporates technology in the context of an actual
classroom setting. These observations could help teachers to learn new skills while
simultaneously increasing their confidence with digital tools (An & Reigeluth, 2011). When
implementing a new innovation at a school site, Kim et al. (2013) recommended extensive and
recurrent professional development. Furthermore, encouraging teacher collaboration around the
use of technology can alter a school’s culture and facilitate teacher buy-in (An & Reigeluth,
2011; Kim et al., 2013).
Granger, Morbey, Lotherington, Owston, and Wideman (2002) analyzed interview
transcripts from qualitative case studies of four schools in Canada identified as implementing
innovative pedagogical practices with technology. They found that teachers at these schools
preferred “just-in-time” professional development that met their immediate needs to “just-in-
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 38
case” training. Hew and Brush (2007) noted that technology tools presented new challenges to
teachers in the area of classroom management. Providing educators with specific classroom
management strategies related to technology integration can maximize student time on task.
Lambert and Gong (2010) advocated technology training in which the technology tools,
instructional strategies, and content are presented in an interrelated manner. They reported that
this type of professional development had a profound positive impact on the attitudes and beliefs
of both aspiring and current teachers with regard to using technology in the classroom.
Leadership
Examples in the literature state the importance of committed and involved school and
district leadership to teachers’ effective assimilation of digital tools in the classroom (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Granger et al., 2002; Lowther et al., 2008; Reeves, 2009; Su & Bay,
2009). Reeves (2009) recommended that administrators be aware of “initiative fatigue,” which
he described as too many new programs that teachers are asked to implement without removing
any activities or time-consuming responsibilities. Using the analogy of gardening, he
recommended that administrators remove the “weeds” from the garden, or the less effective
activities that are not improving student learning, before planting the flowers of the new
initiative (Reeves, 2009). Supportive school leaders can positively affect teachers to embrace
technology tools in the classroom (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Lowther et al., 2008; Su
& Bay, 2009). Administrators often have the ability to help teachers to overcome potential
barriers, including lack of time, need for training, inability to meet with colleagues, and shortage
of resources (Su & Bay, 2009). Perrotta (2013) discovered a connection between educators’
beliefs that their school leaders were supportive and their views about technology being
beneficial in the classroom. In a study by Granger et al. (2002), teachers in 12 schools across
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 39
Canada responded that they flourished in learning technology in schools with administrators who
encouraged them to take risks and not be afraid of making mistakes. Teachers in these schools
felt supported to engage in their own learning and professional growth (Granger et al., 2002).
Conceptual Frameworks for Technology Integration
Inspired by Shulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge framework, Mishra and
Koehler (2006) added a technology component to address 21st-century pedagogy. The TPACK
model illustrates three separate educational contexts and the ways in which they interact:
pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and technological knowledge. The basis for this
framework is that teaching is a highly complex task that involves different funds of knowledge
and skills. In Shulman’s (1986) work, he examined the relationship between content, such as
science, and instructional strategies used to teach that content. Masterful teachers select the
instructional strategies that most effectively convey concepts and skills to the learner (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). By adding technology to the framework, Mishra and Koehler (2006)
demonstrated the interrelationships and interdependence among content, pedagogy, and
technology. Highly effective instruction that infuses technology occurs where the three areas of
knowledge intersect, as pictured in Figure 2. The technology influences the content and the
pedagogy, the content affects the technology tools and teaching strategies selected, and the
pedagogy affects the content learned and the ways in which technology is incorporated into the
lesson. In the TPACK framework, the teacher serves as a facilitator of learning in a student-
centered classroom rich in authentic, engaging learning opportunities (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Another conceptual framework gaining notice in the literature is Ruben Puentadura’s
SAMR model (Puentadura, 2015). Puentadura developed the SAMR model to assist teachers in
evaluating how they incorporate technology into their instruction (Romrell et al., 2014).
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 40

Figure 2. Mishra and Koehler’s technological pedagogical content knowledge framework.
Source: “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher
Knowledge,” by P. Mishra & M. Koehler, 2006, Teachers College Record, 108, p. 1025.
The literature is replete with examples of teachers employing technological activities that require
low levels of cognitive demand (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Cuban, 2009; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
The SAMR model is a hierarchy of technology integration, progressing from the lower
levels of substitution and augmentation to the higher levels of modification and redefinition of
learning. Substitution and augmentation enhance learning with little or no functional
improvement, while modification and redefinition transform the learning task. Redefinition
refers to transforming student learning in ways that would not have been possible without
technology (Puentadura, 2015). Puentadura (2015) has compared elements of the SAMR model
to a model with which most teachers are very familiar: the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 41
(Anderson et al., 2001). Using a familiar framework as a reference may assist teachers in
understanding each level of SAMR. According to Puentadura (2015), the substitution level of
his model is associated with Bloom’s levels of remembering and/or understanding, augmentation
requires students to understand or apply, modification challenges students to analyze or evaluate,
and redefinition reaches the highest levels of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy: evaluation and
creation (Anderson et al., 2001; Puentadura, 2015). The SAMR model is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Puentadura’s SAMR model. Source: Learning With Technology Using SAMR [Web
log post], by R. Puentadura, 2015, retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/blog/archives/165
Summary of the Literature
A review of the available literature on integration of technology in K-12 classrooms
demonstrated that teachers who provide student-centered classrooms in which learners frequently
use digital tools in engaging ways to access and assess information, think critically, connect
globally, and create and present real solutions to real problems are the exception and not the rule
(Cuban, 2009). The research revealed that educators who integrate digital tools in their lessons
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 42
typically focus on lower levels of cognitive demand, such as drill and practice (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). While technology is pervasive in the current information age, it has
yet to impact education to the same degree that it has influenced other elements of society
(Taylor & Fratto, 2012).
Numerous K-12 school districts across the United States include preparing their students
for college and career as a cornerstone of their mission. After graduation, U.S. students today
are competing with others across the globe for jobs that require a different skillset than the
careers available to their parents (Wagner, 2010). Workers in the information age are expected
to harness a variety of technological tools to access, evaluate, create, and share information (P21,
2009). P21 (2009) stated that K-12 schools should align curriculum, instruction, assessment, and
teachers’ professional development to correspond to what students need to know and be able to
do to be successful in their world.
The literature offers possibilities as to why technology is not being implemented to its
full potential in the classroom, including teachers’ beliefs, the challenges of implementing
innovations, lack of training and support, deficiency or absence of administrator planning, and
other barriers. Although access to technological devices was a key barrier in the recent past,
because of new online testing of content standards, school districts in California and across the
country have purchased more tablets and laptops than ever before. If students are to be provided
opportunities to use these newly acquired devices outside of the assessment window, according
to Lowther et al. (2012), teachers must believe that technology has the power to affect student
learning and must have the self-efficacy to use it effectively. Kim et al. (2013) claimed that a
key element to increasing effective student use of technology is teacher commitment to student-
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 43
centered instruction. In their view, digital tools are a natural complement to a learner-centered
classroom.
According to Marzano et al. (2005), implementation of a deep change such as technology
in the classroom is inherently challenging. Because of varying backgrounds, experiences,
beliefs, and other factors, teachers do not all adapt to change in the same way and therefore need
differentiated support (Su & Bay, 2009). The literature revealed that the professional
development on technology that is offered to teachers is usually focused more on skills and less
on how technology can be used in meaningful, authentic ways to increase student learning.
Kopcha (2012) expressed the importance of providing professional development for teachers that
is ongoing and situated in the context of their classrooms rather than teaching them skills that are
isolated from their curriculum. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) noted the importance of
strong support from site administrators who nurture a culture of teacher learning and risk taking
with digital tools.
The purpose of this case study was to investigate the dynamics of a K-12 school found to
be actively integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction. The study
was part of a thematic dissertation group comprised of 10 case studies that examined various
school sites in California. This study will add to the current literature by determining practices
that support teachers in implementing technology as a regular component of the teaching and
learning process. Moreover, this study will provide insight into teachers’ beliefs about
technology integration and implementation and the extent to which those beliefs are manifested
in their classroom practices. It is expected that triangulation of the data from the four data
collection instruments will yield a conceptual framework of the components necessary to foster a
technology-based, 21st-century pedagogical model.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 44
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
The purpose of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K-12 school that is
actively integrating technology in curriculum and instruction. In this era of technological
advancement, the rapidity of developing innovations has prompted continuous change in many
environments, including education, albeit more slowly (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Keeping pace
with these new technological innovations and how they can transform teaching and learning has
been, and continues to be, a challenge for teachers, as well as school and district leaders
(McLester, 2012). With educational institutions investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in
digital devices, it is important to determine their return on investment in terms of benefits to
teaching and learning (Hew & Brush, 2007). Identifying factors that influence the effects of
technological devices on teaching and learning is critical to ensuring that limited district funds
are spent prudently (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Kim et al., 2013).
During the fall semester of 2014, 10 doctoral students at USC worked in a thematic
dissertation team under the direction of Dr. Stuart Gothold to develop the research methodology
employed for this study. The chronology of the thematic dissertation team’s work consisted of
(a) pinpointing the statement of the problem to be studied, (b) researching literature to facilitate
defining the problem statement and purpose of the study, (c) writing the research questions,
(d) developing the conceptual framework, (e) discerning the data needed to address the research
questions, (f) designing the data collection instruments, (g) developing site selection criteria,
(h) crafting data collection procedures, and (i) determining data analysis protocols. Using this
collaboratively designed research methodology, each student conducted his/her individual case
study at a separate school site, analyzed data to determine findings, and developed conclusions
and recommendations based on his/her findings.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 45
This research employed a qualitative case study approach because of its methodological
appropriateness to obtaining data to address the research problem and questions. Qualitative
researchers endeavor to uncover the meaning that people attribute to their experiences by
collecting data in a real-world context (Merriam, 2009). The primary goal of this research was to
uncover the dynamics of a K-12 school that has embraced technology and is actively
implementing and integrating digital tools in its classrooms. A qualitative approach provided the
opportunity to discover factors that influenced use of technology as they occurred in real
classrooms rather than a laboratory setting. Quantitative research, with its traditional focus on
experimental methods and quantitative measures to test narrow hypotheses, was not selected for
this study because it lacks the ability to take into full account the complex social interactions that
take place in classrooms (Cronbach, 1975). If the research were focused on proving or
disproving a hypothesis regarding a specific factor or factors involved in integration of
classroom technology, a quantitative methodological approach would have been desirable
(Creswell, 2013). Strauss and Corbin (1990) claimed that qualitative methods can increase
understanding of a phenomenon for the reader by providing rich, thick descriptions. The product
of qualitative research can help to steer future studies and provide useful information to
educational practitioners in a format that is easily understood.
The remaining sections of this chapter provide information regarding this study’s
research design, including guiding questions, sample and population, data collection instruments
and process, validity and reliability factors, data analysis protocols, and ethical considerations.
Research Questions
Research questions describe what the researcher wants to learn as a result of the study
and form the foundation of the research design (Maxwell, 2013). Marshall and Rossman
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 46
asserted that there are advantages to designing research questions that are specific to setting
and/or participant, one of which is focusing the researcher on the actions and beliefs of the
identified people and places being studied in their natural environment (as cited in Maxwell,
2013). The research questions for this case study were designed collaboratively by members of
the thematic dissertation team to guide their investigation of school dynamics that facilitate
incorporation and implementation of technology in ways that improve student learning. The
dissertation team members read empirical research on use of technology in K-12 education and
identified areas that were lacking or unclear in the literature. From this review of the research,
the team focused on four key areas deemed to be critical to integration and implementation of
technology in the K-12 classroom: pedagogy, training and professional development, sustained
support, and teacher beliefs. The following four collaboratively developed research questions
guided this case study:
1. How do educators at SBMS integrate technology to support students’ learning?
2. To what factors do educators at SBMS attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at SBMS provided support for technology integration and
implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
SBMS?
Each dissertation team researcher inserted the name of a separate school site for the
purposes of his/her study. The open-ended design of the research questions facilitated collection
of rich data from participants via surveys and interviews, through document analysis, and during
classroom observations.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 47
Research Design
According to Creswell (2013), qualitative research is an inquiry-based process through
which the understanding of social or human experience is constructed using distinct
methodological inquiry techniques. Maxwell (2013) stated that qualitative methods facilitate the
researcher uncovering how participants make meaning of their world, comprehending the
participants’ context and how it affects their behavior, and examining process instead of
outcomes of experiences. A key component of qualitative research is that the researcher is the
primary instrument for data collection. Using an inductive process, the researcher analyzes data
to generate concepts or theories and synthesizes data to provide rich descriptions relevant to the
context of the study (Merriam, 2009).
The case study is a qualitative research strategy that has gained popularity in recent years
(Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Case study research consists of an intensive study of an example of a
phenomenon in its natural setting from the emic perspective (Gall et al., 2003). Merriam (2009)
stated that the defining characteristic of a case study is the bounded system, or the unit around
which the phenomenon under investigation is bound. Instead of focusing on a topic, the case
study is characterized by this unit of analysis (Merriam, 2009). The case study is not limited to
specific methods of data collection. The thematic dissertation team determined that a qualitative
case study design would yield thick, rich, descriptive data and would best assist each researcher
to uncover the interaction of actions, perceptions, and interpretations to address the research
problem and questions, each focusing on a different school site as the unit of analysis (Merriam,
2009).
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 48
Sample and Population
Gall et al. (2003) stated that selection of the case study sample and population typically
consists of identifying a bounded system that represents the phenomenon being studied to a great
extent or one that is an aberrant case of interest. While the literature offers several examples of
research on technology integration in K-12 classrooms, there is a dearth of research that focuses
specifically on how teachers’ technology practices affect teaching and learning in a school that
purports to embrace technology. After engaging in thoughtful dialogue, the thematic dissertation
team developed the following purposeful criteria to guide selection of a school site that would
yield comprehensive data to address the problem of practice under investigation: (a) a public,
private, or charter school operating in a K-12 system; (b) technology claim: a school that is
actively implementing instructional technology in a significant way; (c) a vision statement,
mission statement, school profile, and/or principal’s message that demonstrates that the site
embraces instructional technology; and (d) evidence of student achievement. Identifying a
school site through purposeful selection was expected to provide data germane to the study’s
goals and questions because participants were likely to demonstrate the behaviors or phenomena
being researched (Maxwell, 2013). Creswell (2013) stated the importance of protecting the
privacy of research participants; therefore, aliases have been used for all school, district, and
participant names in this study.
The site chosen for this case study, SBMS, met the selection criteria. SBMS is a public
middle school in the South Bay School District, a K-8 diverse, suburban urban district located in
the Los Angeles basin near the Los Angeles International Airport. A total of 758 students attend
SBMS in Grades 6 through 8. A majority of these students, almost 60%, are identified as
Hispanic or Latino, and nearly 36% are identified as Black or African American. Asian,
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 49
Filipino, White, and students classified as “Other” encompass fewer than 5% of the total student
population. About 87% of SBMS students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, and almost
18% are classified ELL. SBMS employs an educational staff of 37 teachers, a principal, an
assistant principal, and a technology assistant. The school’s website notes that it offers a science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) focus that prepares students with the skills
required to be successful in today’s technology-driven world. Through a partnership with
Chevron Corporation, SBMS purchased desktop computers for three STEM lab classrooms and
Chromebooks for student use. Through 2013, all public schools and school districts in California
received an Academic Performance Index (API) score between 200 (low) and 1,000 (high) based
primarily on student results in Grades 2 through 11 on the California Standards Tests in English
Language Arts and Mathematics. The CDE set the API target at 800. The 2013 growth API for
SBMS was 779. The Hispanic or Latino student subgroup earned an API of 784, and the API for
the Socioeconomically Disadvantaged student subgroup was 776. SBMS earned a 2013 similar
schools ranking of 10 out of 10, signifying that its student achievement data placed it in the
highest decile when compared to the 100 California middle schools featuring the most similar
student demographic data.
As stated by Maxwell (2013), sampling includes the people selected for a study, as well
as locations and processes. This study population consisted of employees at SBMS, primarily
teachers and administrators. No students participated in this research. The data collection
instruments, described in detail later in this chapter, included document review, lesson
observations, surveys, and interviews.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 50
Access/Entry
Creswell (2013) stressed the importance of obtaining approval from gatekeepers: the
individuals who can provide access and grant permission for research to be conducted at a site.
To begin the process of gaining access, this researcher contacted South Bay School District’s
Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services and provided an overview of this qualitative
case study, including its purpose and research questions. When asked whether a site in South
Bay School District met the selection criteria for this study, the Assistant Superintendent
suggested SBMS because of its state-of-the-art technology and STEM focus.
Before collecting any data, the researcher visited the school site and met the teachers and
administrators to begin establishing rapport. Each participant was provided an informed consent
form, given an explanation of its purpose, and asked whether he or she had questions. All
participants read and signed the form. Following completion of the informed consent process,
the researcher collaborated with the site principal to schedule dates and times to conduct
observations, surveys, and interviews.
Instrumentation
This study incorporated multiple methods of data collection to increase the validity of the
findings and facilitate triangulation of results (Gall et al., 2003). Triangulation occurs when the
researcher includes different data collection methods as a check on one another (Maxwell, 2013).
Maxwell (2013) claimed that, through triangulation, the researcher reduces the risk of bias that
could occur from reliance on one data collection method, thereby increasing the study’s
credibility. In addition, use of multiple data collection methods provides different lenses through
which to study a phenomenon, providing a more complex interpretation for the researcher
(Maxwell, 2013). The triangulation process as it occurred in this study is represented in Figure
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 51
4. The arrows depict the crosschecking of data from the document review, lesson observations,
interviews, and surveys.

Figure 4. Triangulation of data sources as implemented in this study.
The thematic dissertation team divided into three subgroups comprised of three or four
members each to focus on drafting protocols for each of three specific data collection tools: the
interview guide, the observation template, and the survey. After each subgroup developed its
draft data collection instrument, the thematic dissertation team convened to analyze each tool and
provide input, always referring back to the study’s purpose and research questions to guide
decisions. Each of the instruments then underwent review by members of the dissertation
committee to ensure that they facilitated collection of rich data targeting the study’s research
questions and purpose. The following sections describe each data collection instrument in the
order in which they were utilized in this study.
Document Review
Document review was the study’s first data collection tool. A review of relevant
documents provides several advantages in case study research. According to Merriam (2009),
the term documents includes public records, reports, memoranda, charts, films, videos, and
websites. Documents are typically free and easily accessible. Perhaps most important, the
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 52
presence of the researcher does not change the content of documents, so they are steady sources
of information (Merriam, 2009). This researcher chose to begin data collection with document
review in order to determine whether the school site selected truly met all criteria of this study
and to ensure that it would prove to be a rich source of data.
To create the document review protocols, each thematic dissertation subgroup selected
one of the four research questions on which to focus. The subgroups identified the data required
and the potential documents that would provide relevant information to address the research
question. Following this step, each subgroup shared its draft with the entire thematic dissertation
team to obtain feedback and answer questions. The team then combined the information created
by the subgroups to create a document analysis matrix divided into four sections, one for each
research question, as displayed in Appendix A.
Survey
Although reviewing school and district documents provided important insight into the
problem of practice, administration of a survey enabled the researcher to ask the same specific
questions of participants that addressed all of the study’s research questions and analyze the
range of numerical responses (Maxwell, 2013). The survey was this study’s sole quantitative
measure of data collection and provided a means of obtaining a snapshot of the expertise,
feelings, beliefs, and behaviors of a large number of participants (Creswell, 2013; Fink, 2012).
Due to the time-intensive nature of interviews and observations, fewer participants were
interviewed or observed in this study.
Similar to the observation template, the survey was designed by a subgroup of the
thematic dissertation team. Using the study’s research questions as a guide, they reviewed
several sources in the literature and created a self-administered survey featuring 22 items
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 53
(Appendix B). For the first three major domains, student learning, technology skills, and
technology support, respondents answered items using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from
rarely or never to almost always. For the final domain, technology beliefs, the scale ranged from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. Incorporation of the 4-point scale was very purposeful in
that it eliminated a neutral option and created a forced choice for survey respondents.
Observations
While document review is an effective data collection tool for qualitative researchers and
surveys provide input from a greater number of participants, observations offer an opportunity to
view what people do in their natural context (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Another strength of
observations as a data collection tool is that they provide the researcher with the ability to see
and interpret events or activities directly (Merriam, 2009). Bogdan and Biklen (2007) asserted
that researchers can sometimes observe phenomena that may not be disclosed in documents or
through surveys or interviews. In the context of this case study, documents may state that the
school provides opportunities for students to use technology to solve problems, but classroom
observations of teachers may or may not corroborate that claim. Observations were implemented
as the third phase of the data collection process because the researcher did not want the content
of the interview questions to influence teachers’ pedagogy.
The classroom observation template employed for this study was designed primarily by a
subgroup of the thematic dissertation team with input from the other team members. It featured
10 critical areas of classroom pedagogy as demonstrated in the literature: samples of effective
practice, check for understanding strategies, technology tools, classroom environment, level of
student engagement, student grouping, student activity, curriculum resources, rigor level of
instruction, and student demographics and program participation. The design incorporated two
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 54
boxes adjacent to each specific item listed under the 10 key areas. The first box allowed the
researcher to mark whether the practice was not observed (leave blank), mildly observed (1), or
highly evident (2). In the event the practice was present, the second of the two boxes provided
an opportunity to indicate the extent to which technology was used in conjunction with that
practice (i.e., not observed [blank], enhanced by technology [1], or transformed by technology
[2]). These descriptors of technology use were derived from Puentadura’s (2015) SAMR model,
a conceptual framework described in the previous chapter. The final section of the template
provided an area in which the researcher could describe specific teacher and student behaviors
during a lesson observation (Appendix C). During classroom observations, this researcher
attempted to focus on items stressed by Merriam (2009), including the physical classroom
setting, students, teacher, activities, interactions, and communication.
Interviews
Dexter defined the interview as a “conversation with a purpose” (as cited in Merriam,
2009, p. 88). Interviewing is an important data collection tool in qualitative research because it
provides information that cannot be gained through observation or document review, such as a
participant’s feelings and thoughts (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). Weiss (1994) noted that
interviews can also offer insight into past events that cannot be observed. Well-designed
interviews consist of open-ended questions that provide rich data about the interviewee’s
perceptions of the world using his or her words (Patton, 2002). Interviews were selected as one
of the data collection tools for this study because they facilitate delving deeply into the study’s
problem of practice and often uncover critical information that cannot be determined through
other means.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 55
Consistent with development of the observation and survey protocols, a subgroup of the
thematic dissertation team created the interview guide (Appendix D) with input from the other
members of the team. The interview questions stimulated responses that addressed the four
research questions. Since all members of the thematic dissertation team were novice
interviewers, employing the interview guide approach provided support by having the questions
written in advance (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). In addition, because the same questions were
asked of each participant in the same order, data analysis was easier than it would have been
using other interview protocols. This was an important consideration for the team because each
member conducted a qualitative case study within a limited time period. The interview guide
was divided into four distinct areas, one for each research question. There were four to five
interview questions targeted toward each research question, and the final question of each section
provided the respondent the opportunity to add information that he or she deemed to be pertinent.
Data Collection
In qualitative or interpretative studies, the researcher is the primary instrument of data
collection, and data are gathered using techniques such as interviews, observations, and
document analysis (Creswell, 2013). According to Bogdan and Biklen (2007), data are the
foundation for analysis and should be collected in a systematic and thorough manner. Effective
data collection techniques in qualitative research are flexible enough to support emergent design
and yield rich, thick descriptions that address the research questions and goals of the study
(Merriam, 2009).
This research was conducted using a qualitative case study approach. The thematic
dissertation team determined that conducting intensive research at a school site purporting to
embrace technology would result in rich data about the extent to which digital tools influence
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 56
teaching and learning at that school. Because each of the 10 members of the team conducted
case study research at a separate school site, there was increased potential for common findings
generated by the entire team that could inform practice. The qualitative approach was selected
for this study because it provides an opportunity for the investigator to interact with participants
in their natural context rather than in an artificial setting, thereby increasing the potential of
collecting data that reflect real practices, beliefs, and thoughts (Creswell, 2013). Schools are
highly complex social settings, and qualitative research uses a holistic approach to provide an
overarching view of what is occurring (Creswell, 2013; Gall et al., 2003). In addition, qualitative
research affords collection of multiple sources of data that enable the investigator to triangulate
the data, strengthening the credibility of the results (Creswell, 2013).
This researcher and all other members of the thematic dissertation team completed
training on all course modules required by USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct
exempt research studies involving human subjects. This study qualified as exempt from federal
regulations because the IRB application demonstrated that there was slight, if any, risk involved
to human subjects by participating (USC, 2014). The IRB application also established that the
research would be occurring at a school site for the purposes of studying typical educational
practices through observations of the public behaviors of teaching and learning, reviewing
publicly available documents, and conducting interviews of and administering surveys to public
school employees. All data collected through the course of the study were protected from
disclosure because they were stored on the researcher’s secure laptop in a locked office and
coded to protect participants’ personal identities. IRB approval was granted on March 30, 2015.
Data collection for this qualitative case study occurred from March 2015 through
November 2015 and included the following instruments in the order in which they were
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 57
administered: document review, survey, lesson observations, and interviews. The first phase,
document review, began in March 2015, and included an examination of multiple online and
printed resources for the purpose of verifying that SBMS met all of the site selection criteria.
The researcher analyzed the following documents associated with South Bay School District in
general and/or SBMS specifically to understand how the district and/or school publicly
demonstrated commitment to implementation and integration of technology: mission and vision
statements, School Accountability Report Card (SARC), Single Plan for Student Achievement,
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP), technology plan, achievement data, school and
district calendars, and the professional development plan/calendar. As the researcher developed
rapport with the participants, additional documents became available for analysis, including
classroom artifacts, lesson plans, student/teacher work samples, and the online calendars used by
staff to reserve stationary and mobile computer labs. The document review matrix created
collaboratively by the thematic dissertation team guided the recording of data from these
documents.
Following approval of the research by the South Bay School District Superintendent of
Schools, the investigator contacted the principal of SBMS and met with him to share specific
details about the study and secure his support. Together, they developed a preliminary schedule
for data collection that was most convenient for the school site and provided optimal times for
gathering rich data. Consistent with IRB requirements, participants signed informed consent
forms prior to participation in the study.
The technology survey was administered in September 2015. To maximize the number
of respondents, the principal granted the researcher access to a staff meeting. All teachers
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 58
present at the staff meeting completed the self-administered questionnaire in about 15 minutes.
The survey was designed to address the four research questions in a concise manner.
The principal’s input was critical in guiding the third stage of data collection: lesson
observations. He identified teachers at each grade level at the school who most embraced
technology in the classroom. Each of the six lesson observations was approximately 45 minutes
in duration and occurred during October and November 2015. By observing lessons in Grades 6
through 8, the researcher gained insight into teachers’ technology integration and implementation
practices school wide and noted similarities and differences across grade levels. Data were
recorded by hand, using the lesson observation protocol. During each observation, the researcher
circulated throughout the classroom three or four times to facilitate viewing the students’ work
closely and from different perspectives. The goal was to understand the activities that were
occurring without moving about so frequently as to disrupt the students’ learning (Merriam,
2009). To assist in disciplining subjectivity, the researcher made observer comments in the
observation field notes, as recommended by Bogdan and Biklen (2007).
The last data collection tool implemented was interviews. Six educators, including the
principal, four classroom teachers, and the technology assistant, were interviewed separately for
approximately 1 hour each during November 2015. Each participant was asked before beginning
the interview to consent to being audio recorded, even though each had given this consent as part
of the informed consent process. Since qualitative researchers attempt to study participants in
their natural setting, the teachers were interviewed in their classrooms and the administrator in
his office (Merriam, 2009). The teachers were provided the opportunity to view their classroom
walls and picture their students as interview questions were asked, which potentially added
richness to the interview data. Data were entered on a laptop as well as via audio recordings that
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 59
were later transcribed to ensure that no critical interview data were omitted. During the course
of each interview, a deliberate attempt was made to provide nonverbal reinforcement to
participants through nodding, leaning forward, and frequent eye contact, as recommended by
Bogdan and Biklen (2007). The interviews were conducted following the lesson observations to
prevent interview questions from influencing the lesson content.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are important aspects of any qualitative case study. The research
methodology employed in this study addressed the validity and reliability of the study in several
ways. This study incorporated four tools for collection of data. According to Miles, Huberman,
and Saldaña (2014), triangulation of the data by confirming it through more than one lens
corroborates the findings and increases credibility. Member checks were incorporated as a
means of testing whether participants agreed that the conclusions drawn from data were on target
or off base (Maxwell, 2013). To ensure reliability, the researcher questioned the results to
determine whether they were credible based on the data collected, as suggested by Merriam
(2009).
Data Analysis
In qualitative research, data analysis consists of interrogating one’s data systematically in
order to make meaning of it (Merriam, 2009). To that end, this researcher employed Creswell’s
(2013) steps for qualitative data analysis. The graphic representation of Creswell’s model, as
depicted in Figure 5, shows the first steps starting at the base of the figure, progressing from the
bottom to the top in the direction of the arrows. While the model demonstrates a linear
progression, steps were repeated throughout the data analysis process.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 60
The first step of data analysis involved organizing and preparing the raw data obtained
through document analysis, classroom observations, surveys, and interviews (Creswell, 2013).
In case study research, Gall et al. (2003) prescribed that data analysis should occur during data
collection, not at the conclusion of it. To ensure accuracy of findings, the researcher conducted

Figure 5. Creswell’s model for analysis of data in qualitative research. From Research Design:
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed-Methods Approaches (4th ed.), by J. W. Creswell, 2013, p.
218.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 61
initial analysis of both observational and interview data on the same evening following each
interview or observation, as recommended by Bogdan and Biklen (2007). Data from lesson
observations were reread and initial thoughts noted in the margins. All interviews were
transcribed to provide an accurate account of each participant’s responses, and survey data were
tabulated to determine the percentage of respondents who selected each of the four answer
choices by question.
The next step in data analysis was reading through all of the data to reflect on the gestalt
of meaning (Creswell, 2013). Next, the researcher coded the data obtained through interviews
and observations. Following a process recommended by Miles et al. (2014), the first cycle of
coding consisted of reading the interview transcripts and observational data again and coding
them based on a priori and emergent codes. The second cycle of coding applied was pattern
coding, or creating umbrella codes to synthesize the data into smaller, more manageable chunks
of information (Miles et al., 2014). The initial pattern codes were then crosschecked with the
data and amended or eliminated if they were not supported by the data (Miles et al., 2014).
Coding provided a way to categorize thinking based on the data that reflected the meaning or
conclusions of the study (Miles et al., 2014).
Following coding, the researcher created a description of the school and participants and
analyzed the pattern codes to generate assertions, what Gall et al. (2003) described as “salient,
characteristic features of a case” (p. 39) and Creswell (2013) called major findings. Finally, the
researcher developed a qualitative narrative to describe the salient themes that emerged from
data analysis, which led to interpretation of the results in the form of a thick, rich narrative
(Creswell, 2013).
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 62
Ethical Considerations
According to Merriam (2009), with qualitative research, the responsibility of conducting
a study in an ethical manner rests with the researcher. This researcher completed training on
ethical considerations of research involving human subjects as part of USC’s IRB requirements.
In addition, the researcher explained the purpose of the case study and the methods to be used to
each participant in advance of his/her participation (Creswell, 2013). Creswell (2013) stated that
researchers should protect the subjects of their research. In an effort to maintain confidentiality,
all participants in this study were assigned pseudonyms and the names of the school and district
were changed. All staff members at the school site signed an informed consent form prior to
participating in the research, and they were reminded that participation was strictly voluntary.
Summary
This chapter described the research methodology employed in this qualitative case study.
Included in this discussion were the purpose of the study, the research questions, rationale for
using a qualitative case study method, description of the sample and population studied,
information about the instrumentation employed, a description of the procedures and methods
used to collect data, and the process used for data analysis.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 63
Chapter Four: Results
Upon entering the eighth-grade Project Lead the Way (PLTW) classroom at SBMS, it is
immediately apparent that the learning environment is unique. The physical space features a
large classroom on the left connected to a computer lab on the right, with no door or wall
separating them. Students are working in both areas. The classroom area is furnished with
sturdy, rectangular tables with chairs pushed aside to make room for small groups of teenage
students clustered around them. On each table is a case labeled “tool chest,” containing separate
labeled compartments for wheels and wires, nuts and bolts, wrenches and screwdrivers. The
adjoining lab boasts 40 state-of-the-art desktop computers in rows, with an aisle in the middle.
Groups of three to four students are huddled around some of the computers, entering commands.
“Figure out which one goes to the motor,” the teacher says, pointing to a part of a group’s
robot when one of its wheels does not spin in the correct direction. “If it’s positive, try making it
negative,” she suggests. In the next 40 minutes, teams of students move seamlessly from the
classroom to the lab, testing their robots, making programming modifications on the computer,
and going back to the classroom to make further adjustments to their robot’s components. The
teacher, Mrs. Anderson, is their facilitator. She moves back and forth from the lab to the
classroom, stopping to ask questions of and prompting groups of students. Students do not raise
their hands; they strive to complete their robots independently. At the end of the class period,
Mrs. Anderson gathers the students in the classroom and asks them to share their progress.
Following a brief discussion, the bell rings to signal the beginning of recess. Although some
students exit the classroom, several opt to stay and continue their dialogue with the teacher. Mrs.
Anderson is clearly an educator who is masterful at harnessing technology to transform students’
learning.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 64
The focus of this study was to investigate the dynamics of a K–12 school that is actively
integrating and implementing technology in curriculum and instruction. Moreover, this research
was designed to identify uses of technology at the school site that redefine and transform
pedagogy. To facilitate identification and study of these dynamics, the researcher conducted this
case study at a racially and ethnically diverse middle school identified by the district’s
superintendent as a STEM academy featuring state-of-the-art technology. SBMS was designated
by the South Bay School District as a STEM academy beginning with the 2011-2012 school
year. When SBMS entered its fifth year of program improvement status, based on student
assessment data under federal No Child Left Behind legislation, South Bay School District was
required to create a corrective action plan. The center of this plan was the redesign of SBMS as
a STEM academy, with the goal of bridging high academic standards and accountability with
opportunities for students to engage in collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical
thinking through meaningful, hands-on use of cutting-edge digital tools. By offering
opportunities for students to master the standards through relevant and engaging learning
experiences, school and district staff expected to increase student achievement results on state
standardized assessments.
Four research questions provided the foundation of this study and facilitated acquisition
of data from a variety of perspectives. The research questions that directed this study were:
1. How do educators at SBMS integrate technology to support students’ learning?
2. To what factors do educators at SBMS attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at SBMS provided support for technology integration and
implementation?
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 65
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
SBMS?
In an effort to address these questions, data were collected through multiple means,
including document analysis, teacher surveys, interviews, and lesson observations. The
document analysis component consisted of examination of a variety of online and printed district
and site materials, in addition to investigation of classroom artifacts created by teachers and
students. Additional data were collected via an online survey consisting of 21 prompts featuring
four response choices in a Likert-type scale format. The survey was divided into four major
sections corresponding to the study’s research questions. To increase participation, the survey
was administered during a staff meeting. Thirty-four of the 37 SBMS faculty members
responded, resulting in a participation rate of almost 92%. For the third phase of data collection,
lesson observations, the researcher observed six classroom lessons during which educators
incorporated technology. The final phase of data collection consisted of the researcher
conducting six individual interviews with school site staff: the principal, the technology assistant,
and four teachers.
Two conceptual frameworks guided the identification of transformational technology
practices in the data: the SAMR model (Puentadura, 2015) and the TPACK model (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). In the SAMR model, technology practices that modify (M) or redefine (R) the
learning task are considered transformational, whereas lessons through which technology is used
as a substitute (S) or an augmentation (A) are viewed as enhancements because they have not
redefined the learning task significantly (Puentadura, 2015). Mishra and Koehler’s (2006)
TPACK model provided another important lens that facilitated identification of transformative
technology practices at SBMS. TPACK refers to an educator’s technological, pedagogical, and
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 66
content knowledge and emphasizes the associations and limitations among them (Mishra &
Koehler, 2006). According to this model, good teaching requires (a) an understanding of how
content affects the selection of both instructional strategies and the technology used to teach it,
(b) a broad base of pedagogical skills from which an instructor can determine the most effective
strategies for teaching a concept using digital tools, and (c) a mastery of technology that provides
the freedom and creativity to represent and teach concepts in multiple ways to meet learners’
needs. Therefore, lessons that feature the intersection of an educator’s technological, content,
and pedagogical expertise maximize student learning (An & Reigeluth, 2011).
The following sections report the findings of the study for each of four research questions
and highlight salient themes that appeared in the data.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, “How do educators at South Bay Middle School integrate
technology to support students’ learning?” The data from documents, surveys, observations, and
interviews revealed that teachers implement technology consistently in SBMS classrooms, and
some are truly transforming teaching and learning through their use of technology as defined by
the SAMR and TPACK models.
A review of documents, including district and school websites, the SARC, the SBMS
Single Plan for Student Achievement, the school’s brochure, and classroom artifacts reinforced
that SBMS is a STEM academy in its third year of providing PLTW as a cornerstone of its
programmatic offerings. PLTW is a national nonprofit organization that delivers project-based
K-12 STEM curriculum and professional development to more than 8,000 schools in the United
States. Through PLTW, students create, build, and test their ideas for solving real problems with
the same Autodesk
®
3D engineering software utilized in companies worldwide. SBMS offers
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 67
three PLTW classes at each grade level, sixth through eighth, totaling nine sections, and serves
approximately 270 of the school’s 758 students, or 36% of the student population. Each PLTW
instructor teaches three blocks of two class periods, with approximately 30 students per block.
The block consists of the PLTW class combined with a mathematics class. This marriage of
PLTW and mathematics in the master schedule provides multiple opportunities for the PLTW
teachers to reinforce mathematical concepts through PLTW and vice versa. Through the PLTW
curriculum, students work collaboratively on projects such as designing a playground, creating a
functioning traffic light, building a robotic arm, and analyzing DNA evidence to solve a crime.
Technology Use Varies Based on Years of Experience
The survey data revealed an interesting dichotomy in the use of technology between
veteran members of the SBMS faculty and their less-experienced colleagues. The 34 teachers
who completed the survey can be divided into approximate thirds by years of experience: 1 to 5
years, 6 to 15 years, and 16 or more years. Responding to the survey item, “My instruction
involves use of technology,” more than 60% replied most of the time or almost always. When
disaggregated by years of experience, more than 77% of the educators with 15 or fewer years
answered most of the time or almost always, while about 33% with more experience selected one
of those options. To the item, “I use technology daily in a variety of ways to present lessons,”
nearly two thirds responded most of the time or almost always. However, when disaggregated by
experience, 59% with 15 or fewer years in the classroom answered most of the time or almost
always, while approximately 67% of their more seasoned colleagues answered either sometimes
or rarely or never. Similarly, to the item, “I use technology in a variety of ways to assess student
learning,” nearly 67% of the veteran staff with 16 or more years of experience answered either
sometimes or rarely or never, while 62% of their less-experienced colleagues answered most of
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 68
the time or almost always. Table 1 summarizes the responses to the survey statements pertaining
to Research Question 1.
Table 1
Survey Responses to Statements Related to Research Question 1 (Student Learning) (N = 34)

1 2 3 4
Rarely Most of Almost
Survey statement or never Sometimes the time always

My instruction involves use of
technology.
8.8% 29.4% 29.4% 32.4%
My lessons encourage creativity and
innovation through student use of
technology.
11.8% 58.8% 23.5% 5.9%
My lessons embed activities or tasks that
stimulate critical thinking and problem-
solving through student use of
technology.
11.7% 58.8% 14.7% 8.8%
My lessons embed student use of
technology in the classroom.
23.5% 52.9% 14.7% 8.8%
My lessons embed student use of
technology outside of the classroom.
29.4% 64.7% 5.9% 0.0%
Students are encouraged to work
collaboratively with other students while
using technology.
32.4% 38.2% 20.6% 8.9%
Professional development (PD) sessions
have improved my use of technology in
the classroom.
8.9% 44.1% 29.4% 17.7%
I use technology to differentiate
instruction.
11.8% 55.9% 23.5% 8.8%

When reflecting on differences in technology use between less-experienced and veteran
educators, Mr. Warner, the principal, shared information that reinforced the survey data:
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 69
The trend tends to be . . . that the younger teachers . . . it’s just a gimme. The younger
teachers, that is their go-to. Google Docs, all those things are second nature for those
guys because that’s how they grew up. Older teachers, you have to lead them by the
hand. I don’t think that means they’re against technology. They’re just intimidated by it
sometimes. It’s not always across the board. I have some older teachers who are actually
technology hounds and some younger teachers who aren’t. For the most part, the
younger the teacher, the newer the hire, they seem to have less anxiety about the
technology.
Like the principal, the school’s technology assistant, Mr. Martinez, has a school-wide view of
technology use at SBMS. In his recent experience, prospective teachers graduate from their
university preparation programs with expectations for classroom technology. He shared an
anecdote regarding an email that a new teacher sent to the principal at the beginning of the year:
She emailed our principal, “Thank you, Mr. Warner, for the opportunity. I just wanted to
know if I’m going to have an LCD projector ready on the first day of school and a
document camera, because they are going to facilitate me to start the school year.” By
the same token, the teachers who have been teaching for the past 30 years, 20 years . . .
when we started implementing technology in the schools, there was a big push back
against technology from these teachers.
Student-Centered Instruction
Although educators at SBMS may differ in their implementation of technology based on
their years of experience, their survey data in the area of student-centered instruction were more
consistent. To the prompt, “My classroom is student centered,” all participants responded either
most of the time or almost always. Just over 40% of the teachers with 15 or fewer years in the
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 70
classroom replied almost always, but only one in the more experienced group (8%) selected that
answer. While these data do not prove that student-centered instruction is occurring at SBMS,
they indicate that teachers believe that they offer a learner-centered environment.
The anecdote at the beginning of this chapter reflected an actual lesson observation and
illustrated the student-centered philosophy integral to the success of the nine PLTW classes. In
these classes, students work collaboratively to design solutions to real-world problems using the
same software as many practicing engineers and designers. This researcher observed four PLTW
classes: two in eighth grade and one each in seventh and sixth grades. The eighth-grade teacher,
Mrs. Anderson, has been a PLTW instructor for 3 years and trains other educators for PLTW.
During both eighth-grade class visits, she assumed the role of facilitator. She set the expectation
and provided support for her students to take responsibility for their own learning. Technology
use by the students and the teacher was organic rather than additive. Similarly, when the
researcher observed the seventh-grade PLTW class, taught by Mrs. Cabrera, students were
collaborating in small groups to design elements of a playground. Mrs. Cabrera set the stage for
student-centered problem solving by stating, “You will feel lost or uncomfortable at first, but you
are going to feel good when you figure it out.” To emphasize her role and that of the students,
she added, “I am going to be a facilitator right now. You have to try to work it out.” The
students then jumped into the task, demonstrating to the researcher the regularity of the situation.
During her interview, Mrs. Cabrera shared that she relies on multiple uses of technology for both
PLTW and her mathematics class. When asked to describe her use of technology with her
students, she remarked, “I become their coach.”
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 71
Access to Technology Facilitates Organic Use
The technology available at SBMS is touted in a variety of site and district documents.
The school’s vision statement notes, “State of the art technology is an integral part of the
instructional program.” In addition to state-of-the-art technology, the SBMS brochure publicizes
the school’s iPad lab and PLTW program. During a campus walkthrough with the principal, the
researcher observed a teacher’s laptop, an LCD projector, and a document camera in almost
every classroom. A few classrooms exhibited even more extensive access to technology. To
illustrate, each of the three PLTW classrooms contains a computer lab equipped with 40 desktop
computers. The special education and English Learner classrooms feature what the principal
described as dedicated carts of Chromebooks and headphones with microphones in quantities to
ensure 1:1 student access.
During his interview, Mr. Martinez, SBMS’s technology assistant, confirmed that, at a
minimum, each classroom is outfitted with a teacher’s laptop, projector, document camera,
printer, and five Chromebooks. He elaborated that faculty can reserve and use any of the PLTW
labs during non-PLTW instructional times. In addition, “We have nine portable labs with class
sets of Chromebooks and one portable iPad lab that teachers can reserve on our shared Google
Calendar.”
Mr. Warner, the principal, explained that the nine class sets of Chromebooks had been
acquired in the spring of 2014 in preparation for the online SBAC assessments. He admitted,
“We’re obviously not 1:1 with devices, but I have enough devices now at my school that if at
any time a teacher wants a classroom set of Chromebooks, they can have them.” After
developing rapport with the principal, the researcher requested and was granted access to the
Google Calendar records in order to analyze which instructors reserved Chromebook carts and
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 72
with what frequency. The data revealed that, during the months of September through
November 2015, not a single faculty member had reserved a Chromebook cart. Perhaps teachers
used them without reserving them, but they did not employ the school’s formalized system for
checking out the devices for student use. Survey data for the statement, “My lessons embed
student use of technology in the classroom” also revealed room for growth in educators’
incorporation of digital tools for use by students. For this item, 24% of the participants selected
most of the time or almost always, with a slightly higher percentage of the veteran teachers
(25%), selecting one of those answers than their less-experienced peers.
In sharp contrast, the three PLTW instructors take full advantage of their access to the
computer labs adjacent to their classrooms. During separate interviews, each shared that her
students use computers daily. With regard to the computer lab connected to her classroom and
SBMS teachers’ access to devices for students, Mrs. Anderson noted, “If no one is using it, I take
full advantage of it. . . . This year, I’ve only had one teacher that has taken advantage of the
computer lab. . . . The technology is there, just as teachers, you need to take advantage of it.”
When asked to describe her use of technology in the classroom, sixth-grade PLTW
instructor Mrs. Ackerman responded, “My actual lessons are all online. . . . It’s very nice to see,
versus paper, now having students send everything online. They get the college feel that they
wouldn’t get in a normal middle school.” She further shared that having ready access to the lab
has inspired her mathematics instruction. When teaching the students about fractions, she asked
them to demonstrate their learning by creating their own word problems and making
accompanying graphics in the lab. Students selected and demonstrated a variety of fractions
through word problems and pictorially and then uploaded their work to Google Classroom to be
graded by Mrs. Ackerman.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 73
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, “To what factors do educators at SBMS attribute their
knowledge of instructional technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an
instructional tool?” Data from interviews and the survey coalesced primarily around the themes
of providing ongoing professional development and a supportive school culture.
Ongoing Professional Development
Regarding professional development, Principal Warner noted,
The district is really good about not just throwing something at teachers. If they’re going
to be expected to use something, there is going to be plenty of training attached to it. . . .
The district’s computer technology professional development person goes to all the
schools and offers PD in everything that they could possibly imagine. She has a wide
array of things that they might be interested in, and then she tailors it to what their needs
are in their particular classroom. She can even come into the classroom and show them
things- demonstrate.
SBMS’s technology assistant, Mr. Martinez, agreed with Principal Warner’s assessment of the
district’s professional development in technology:
Our district is really good as far as doing training and support for our teachers so they
feel comfortable taking this technology to the point that the fear of technology,
computers, new programs, or whatever else they need to learn kind of goes away.
The researcher obtained access to the district’s Google site on which SBMS faculty can
reserve a space in technology training sessions. The professional development emphases for the
current school year to date have been Google Apps and Schoolnet, the data and assessment
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 74
component of the district’s student information system, PowerSchool. Sessions are voluntary
and offered after school.
PLTW requires teachers to undergo an intensive 2-week training course and offers
refresher courses each summer. When reflecting on her initial PLTW training session, Mrs.
Anderson shared that participants experienced every facet of the same curriculum that they
would teach to their students. The comprehensive nature of the training provided her with a high
degree of confidence. “I felt like I worked more during those two weeks than for my bachelor’s,
master’s, or any other program I’ve been involved in. It was very intensive, but I enjoyed it.”
When asked how she continues to acquire knowledge of technology device use, Mrs. Cabrera,
seventh-grade PLTW instructor, acknowledged the professional development component of the
PLTW program. “They make sure that you keep up. That you go to refresher courses.” She
noted, “The district is offering more workshops for technology. You learn a lot. . . . Attending
these meetings is not mandatory, but since I teach technology and I enjoy it, I’m there.” Her
PLTW colleague, Mrs. Anderson, suggested that administration should require more professional
development offerings focused on technology:
I feel that because we are a STEM academy that more of our mandatory professional
development should revolve around technology. We’re advertising it so much that I feel
we all should be around the same level or at least comfortable with technology itself.
In addition to sessions offered within the district, SBMS teachers have attended outside
professional development opportunities, such as a Google Summit in the past summer.
According to Principal Warner, he has increased teacher access to these options commensurate
with additional state funding received through the Local Control Funding Formula. He
cautioned that with the increased funding comes added responsibility to ensure that the funds are
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 75
spent effectively. “It is important,” he stated, “to provide teachers with technology training they
can really use rather than never seeing them implement what they learned in the classroom.”
Survey data indicated that nearly two thirds of the respondents actively pursue new
technology innovations most of the time or almost always. About 73% of the less-experienced
teachers reported consistently making a strong effort to stay current with technology, while 42%
of the staff with more than 15 years of experience responded similarly. However, of the five
teachers with 26 or more years of experience, three answered that they go out of their way to stay
abreast of new innovations with technology most of the time.
According to An and Reigeluth (2011), best-practice professional development in
technology features hands-on opportunities for teachers to learn. To the survey prompt,
“Teachers are provided with hands-on opportunities to learn instructional technology,” about
71% of the respondents selected sometimes or most of the time, while about 18% answered
almost always, demonstrating their perceived room for improvement in incorporation of hands-
on components in technology training sessions. Table 2 summarizes the survey responses related
to Research Question 2.
Supportive School Culture
Although staff mentioned both district-offered and external professional development as
increasing SBMS educators’ use of technology as an instructional tool, collaboration among staff
members and support from site leadership have also been highly influential in this regard. When
asked to what factors she attributes her knowledge of technology as an instructional tool, PLTW
instructor Mrs. Anderson responded:
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 76
It has a lot to do with collaboration . . . with the lower Project Lead the Way teachers
Mrs. Cabrera and Mrs. Ackerman. I might run across a website or program that I think
might benefit the students at their grade levels or vice versa.
Table 2
Survey Responses to Statements Related to Research Question 2 (Technology Skills) (N = 34)

1 2 3 4
Rarely Most of Almost
Survey statement or never Sometimes the time always

I use technology daily in a variety of
ways to present lessons.
14.7% 35.3% 20.6% 29.4%
I use technology in a variety of ways to
assess student learning. (N = 33)
9.1% 39.4% 39.4% 12.1%
I go out of my way to stay current on the
new innovations with technology.
14.7% 23.5% 44.1% 17.7%
Teachers are provided with hands-on
opportunities to learn instructional
technology.
8.8% 35.3% 38.2% 17.7%

Her sixth-grade PLTW colleague, Mrs. Ackerman, expressed agreement. “I think it’s
collaborating. If a teacher is more aware, has more experience, we go to her . . . we balance off
each other and help each other out. It helps to have that good team.”
All three PLTW instructors stated that they have gleaned ideas about technology
programs from the nationwide network of PLTW teachers. Collaborating with colleagues online
can be a powerful means of increasing one’s expertise in implementing and integrating
technology in the classroom. Mrs. Cabrera learned about the presentation tool Prezi from a
PLTW colleague in another district. She remarked, “Hearing what others do, getting exposed to
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 77
that, and not being afraid to try new things, that’s a key to increasing your own technology
skills.”
Principal Warner is committed to doing his part to ensure that SBMS offers a supportive
culture for teachers to explore and learn new technological tools for the classroom. “My role as
a leader is to give them as many opportunities as I can. . . . I look at myself as being a facilitator
of their learning by encouraging them to try new programs, websites, and apps.” Mrs. Fletcher, a
special education teacher at SBMS, disclosed her growth in technology under Principal Warner’s
leadership:
When I wanted to pilot LANGUAGE! Live, he supported me 100% and went to bat for
me at the district level. I also researched websites such as Socrative and ReadTheory that
I believed would benefit my students greatly. When I met with him and shared my
research and rationale, he gave me his blessing to implement them with my students.
Findings for Research Question 3
An educator can increase his or her individual mastery of instructional technology skills
and pedagogy, but for technology integration and implementation to be systemic, a supportive
school culture must exist (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). Research Question 3 asked, “In
what ways are educators at SBMS provided support for technology integration and
implementation?” The researcher viewed the data through the lens of district and school site
support of teachers to employ technology and identified emergent themes of access, supportive
culture, and obstacles to technology use.
Access to Technology
When considering means of support for technology integration and implementation, it is
crucial to analyze the support that teachers receive in terms of access to devices. If teachers are
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 78
not able to obtain devices for themselves or their students, other types of support will have little
or no influence. Minimum access for educators at SBMS consists of a laptop, LCD projector,
document camera, printer, and five Chromebooks for student use, and this access was confirmed
at each classroom during walkthroughs. PLTW instructors are assigned classrooms adjacent to
labs equipped with 40 desktops. These computers are reserved for their use during PLTW class
time. In addition, the principal has procured 1:1 access to Chromebooks and headsets with
microphones for special education students and English Language Learners. Principal Warner
disclosed that SBMS has the greatest number of wireless access points of any school in the
district, which provides consistent Internet access for staff and students.
The school also offers nine mobile class sets of Chromebooks on carts and one mobile
iPad lab to teachers to check out for use by students. Reflecting on teacher use of these
Chromebook carts, Mrs. Cabrera, seventh-grade PLTW instructor, revealed that some of her
colleagues shared their discomfort in pulling the carts to their classrooms. She reflected, “The
90 seventh-grade students in PLTW have access to technology every single day in my classroom.
Those other kids, I’m not so sure. That concerns me.”
Supportive School Culture
The survey data indicated that approximately 91% of the respondents (31 of 34) agreed
that technology use is encouraged and promoted at SBMS most of the time or almost always,
with nearly 53% selecting almost always. In a school designated as a STEM academy, one
might surmise that use of technology is an integral component of the school’s culture. To the
statement, “Use of instructional technology is a component of my school’s culture,” 24 of 34
participants (73%) selected either most of the time or almost always. Although nearly all staff
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 79
surveyed agreed that technology is promoted at SBMS, fewer saw it as a fundamental element of
the school’s culture.
Two survey items addressed the availability of information technology (IT) support staff
and a mentor to support technology integration. While nearly 66% of the respondents selected
most of the time or almost always with regard to IT support staff accessibility, the percentage of
staff selecting one of those options declined to about 45% when referring to the presence of a
mentor on campus. Mr. Martinez is the full-time technology assistant assigned to SBMS. He
recounted that on several occasions he has assisted individual teachers when they have
encountered challenges with a program or have forgotten an aspect of a professional
development session. He shared that teachers are comfortable asking him for help and know
how to find him on campus. “They flag me down. They call me. They email me. The teachers
don’t like to use the official work order system, but they know I’ll always check my email.”
SBMS does not have a technology mentor or coach assigned solely to the school but a district
technology mentor offers training sessions for SBMS and other South Bay School District staff.
About this mentor, Mr. Martinez noted, “She used to be a classroom teacher herself, so during
training sessions she will say, ‘This is what I would do to integrate this technology into my
lesson plan or into the curriculum.’” Table 3 summarizes participants’ responses to the survey
statements related to Research Question 3.
The PLTW instructors rely considerably on each other for support in integrating and
implementing technology. Mrs. Cabrera stated, “The main support that I have are the other two
Project Lead the Way teachers. . . . The principal allows us to collaborate after school, and he’s
paying us to do that, so that’s even better.” She expressed her appreciation for the district’s
support of the PLTW training sessions and refresher courses, including paying for registration,
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 80
travel, and lodging, since some of these sessions are offered out of state. Eighth-grade PLTW
teacher Mrs. Anderson has developed a comprehensive knowledge of the PLTW curriculum and
its integration with the technology tools at her disposal. She indicated that, when her PLTW
colleagues call her for assistance, she is usually able to help them. “I don’t even have to be
looking at my computer. I’ll say, ‘Just click on this icon. Do this. Do that.’ I have everything
memorized from certain sections and certain lessons. Not everything, but practice makes
perfect.”
Table 3

Survey Responses to Statements Related to Research Question 3 (Technology Support) (N = 34)

1 2 3 4
Rarely Most of Almost
Survey statement or never Sometimes the time always

Use of technology is encouraged and
promoted at my school.
0.0% 8.8% 35.3% 55.9%
IT support staff is available to assist
when needed.
14.7% 20.6% 44.1% 20.6%
A mentor is available to support
technology integration. (N = 33)
15.2% 39.4% 30.3% 15.2%
Use of instructional technology is a
component of my school’s culture. (N =
33)
0.0% 27.3% 42.4% 30.3%
Teachers are provided with hands-on
opportunities to learn instructional
technology.
8.8% 35.3% 38.2% 17.7%

Obstacles to Technology Use
Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014) described the benefits of looking for negative
evidence in the data. This research question focused on how educators are provided support for
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 81
technology integration and implementation. To view this question from the opposite perspective,
the researcher sought to discover obstacles to technology use at SBMS. Determining the extent
to which obstacles are present helped to measure existing levels of support and reveal ways in
which SBMS teachers may need additional support to use technology to maximize student
learning. Approximately 87% of SBMS students are considered socioeconomically
disadvantaged, based on federal Title I standards, and almost 18% are classified as English
Language Learners. SBMS technology assistant Mr. Martinez pointed to a lack of student access
to computers at home as a significant obstacle. He explained how this challenge might transpire
in a classroom:
So the teacher says, “You’re going to have to finish it at home.” She asks, “How many
of you guys have computers at home?” We’ll have a couple of students who will answer,
“I have a computer, but I don’t have Internet” or “I have a computer and Internet, but I
don’t have a printer.” There will always be a few students who say, “I don’t have a
computer.”
PLTW instructor Mrs. Ackerman expressed that this lack of access at home affects her classroom
instruction:
There are many times when students just need a few more minutes to finish a portion of
their assignment, but since some don’t have computers at home, we need to figure out
another time they can complete it. It would be cool if all of my students could practice
certain PLTW elements from home and communicate with me online if they needed help,
but I can’t assign homework that requires computers unless all of my students have one.
Because SBMS possesses many Chromebooks, an apparent solution to lack of student
access at home would be to allow students to check out devices overnight. However, Principal
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 82
Warner is concerned that students would not return the devices to school the next day: “With the
transiency rate . . . I think twice I let Chromebooks go home, and both times I regretted it.” He
added, “I’m not sure it’s necessary to send [the Chromebooks] home. I think we can do a lot by
keeping them here safe and making sure students have as much access here at school as they
can.”
In addition to not knowing the language, English Language Learners at SBMS often face
the barrier of not having been exposed to technology in their home countries. Technology
assistant Mr. Martinez voiced concern that some of these students arrive at SBMS “from third-
world countries where if they have a 15-year-old computer in their school, that’s high
technology. . . . Some of them are running Windows 95. That’s how bad it is.” Teachers
conveyed that, regardless of primary language, any student who is new to the classroom poses a
challenge regarding use of technology. Sixth-grade PLTW instructor Mrs. Ackerman identified
the time required for a new student to gain access as an impediment. “It usually takes a little bit
of time for our new students to get their ID code to have access to the system, and I don’t have
administrative privileges to grant them that access.” The researcher observed a new student in a
seventh-grade PLTW class who was unable to access the Autodesk
®
software that the other
students were using. Even if his account had been established, it would take him time to learn to
use the software at the same level as his peers.
Principal Warner mentioned a different obstacle to technology integration and
implementation: teachers’ lack of vigilant classroom management. For one of the classroom
observations, he arranged for the researcher to observe a second-year teacher using an online
computer-adaptive mathematics program, TenMarks, with her students. During this observation,
many students were off task, although all had been provided with a device and headphones.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 83
Some were on different websites, two were playing with the whiteboard eraser, and others made
loud statements that interrupted the class. “I don’t want to work no more,” declared one. “I do
not like math. Math is my enemy,” contended another. Principal Warner remarked,
Once you’re giving them access to technology, how are you going to control what they
do? I think a lot of that is teacher presence. If a teacher just gives you a Chromebook and
says, “Get to work, guys,” and they sit at their desk. . . . They have to be up and around.
Findings for Research Question 4
Educators’ pedagogical and personal beliefs about the extent to which technology can
transform teaching and learning affect whether they embrace it, challenge it, eschew it entirely,
or balance it with other complementary interests (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012). Research
Question 4 asked, “What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation
at SBMS?” Analysis of the data from the perspective of educators’ beliefs resulted in two
emergent themes: student-centered instruction and technology’s potential to increase student
learning.
Student-Centered Instruction
Educators who offer a student-centered classroom environment provide more
opportunities for students to use technology in authentic and engaging ways (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). A key component of student-centered instruction is the shift in the
teacher’s role from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side.” The PLTW instructors clearly
demonstrated a student-centered approach, particularly Mrs. Anderson during the two
observations of her eighth-grade classes. She was not at the front of the classroom lecturing;
rather, students collaborated to create solutions and she provided support when needed.
Regarding her comfort level in the role of facilitator, Mrs. Anderson stated,
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 84
I’m not afraid to tell a student, “You know what, I don’t know, but let’s figure it out.”
I’m okay with that, but [my colleagues] may not be as comfortable to do that because we
are teachers, and we’re supposed to know everything according to the students.
Sixth-grade PLTW instructor Mrs. Ackerman responded similarly about the shift in
responsibility from teacher to students in her classroom. “I share with the students, ‘I’m not an
expert. Here are some things that might work, or they might not.’ We all learn from each other.
They know and feel they are a part of this [student-centered classroom].” She elaborated, “They
stop relying on me to answer their questions. It builds teamwork and independence for them.
That is great.”
All SBMS survey participants selected either most of the time or almost always in
response to the statement, “My classroom is student-centered.” To the related survey item, “My
students are empowered to be responsible for their own learning,” all but two of the 34
respondents selected either agree or strongly agree. Of the significant majority who responded
favorably, 50% agreed and approximately 44% strongly agreed. The two dissenters identified
themselves as having taught between 6 and 15 years. Table 4 displays respondents’ answers to
the survey components related to Research Question 4.
Technology’s Potential to Increase Student Learning
The survey data related to Research Question 4 revealed that a majority of SBMS
teachers hold positive beliefs about the use of technology in the classroom and its potential to
improve teaching and learning. Of the 34 survey respondents, 33 answered agree or strongly
agree to the prompts, “I support the use of technology in the classroom” and “Instructional
technology has a positive impact on student learning” (Table 4). Mrs. Cabrera, seventh-grade
PLTW instructor, asserted,
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 85
Exposing them to [technology], I think it’s extremely helpful. Especially with this group,
when you have a population that struggles academically. . . . This is their generation and
adapting to their needs. . . . Yes, I do feel integrating technology is extremely important.
Table 4
Survey Responses to Statements Related to Research Question 4 (Technology Beliefs) (N = 34)

1 2 3 4
Strongly Strongly
Survey statement disagree Disagree Agree agree

I support the use of technology in the
classroom.
2.9% 0.0% 35.3% 61.8%
Instructional technology has a positive
impact on student learning.
0.0% 2.9% 41.2% 55.9%
Technology is an important part of
teaching and learning.
0.0% 0.0% 41.2% 58.8%
My classroom is student centered. 0.0% 0.0% 70.6% 29.4%
My students are empowered to be
responsible for their own learning.
0.0% 5.9% 50.0% 44.1%

While it is challenging to determine people’s beliefs through observations, researchers
can confirm whether participants in a study actually engage in a behavior that they espoused
during interviews or on a survey. This researcher observed five teachers, one of them twice, for
a total of six lessons viewed. Three of the instructors teach PLTW, one teaches mathematics,
and one teaches English to students with disabilities. With the exception of the mathematics
class, students used technology throughout the entire class period. During the mathematics
lesson, students utilized Chromebooks for about half of the class period. In each case, the
students appeared to be quite familiar with procedures for technology use, including operating
desktops in the PLTW classes or Chromebooks in the other classes. Because of the students’
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 86
observed comfort level with the devices in their classrooms, the researcher surmised that they
use technology regularly.
During her interview, sixth-grade PLTW instructor Mrs. Ackerman clearly stated her
views on integrating and implementing technology in the classroom:
I love it. . . . Saying yes to the job, I knew I was going to have most of my class learning
technology. I think it’s part of the future, and this is what jobs are going to be about.
This is what students need to learn. Even though they don’t have access at home, they
need to experience it. They need to see it.
Mrs. Fletcher, a special education teacher at SBMS, shared, “Programs like
LANGUAGE! Live and ReadTheory are amazing because they are computer adaptive. They
assess my students’ needs and meet them where they are.” She added, “I can look at the online
progress reports to see their strengths and where they are struggling. [Technology] helps me
target my instruction for each student.” Mrs. Fletcher also reflected on the tendency of many
computer-based literacy programs to appear too “elementary” for her middle school special
education students. “I really like that both of these programs [LANGUAGE! Live and
ReadTheory] use pictures and examples that are more appropriate for older students.”
Conceptual Frameworks
A review of the data through the perspective of the SAMR and TPACK conceptual
frameworks demonstrated that some SBMS educators consistently integrate and implement
technology in transformative ways that reflect expert TPACK, while others use technology to
enhance traditional pedagogy. Observations of and interviews with the three SBMS PLTW
instructors verified the presence of learner-centered classroom environments in which students
are provided opportunities to solve authentic problems using a variety of real-world digital tools.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 87
In the PLTW classes, technology was integral and woven into lessons seamlessly. During
individual interviews, each PLTW instructor confirmed her belief in the power of technology to
improve teaching and learning and revealed delight in learning alongside her students. Sharing
advice that she would give to colleagues on incorporating technology in the classroom, sixth-
grade PLTW instructor Mrs. Ackerman explained,
I know sometimes it feels overwhelming that you might not know what to do, but it’s
amazing once you get the hang of it and you can learn along with your students. It’s
always something new, and you can make your lessons much better and bigger and more
meaningful for [students].
During observations of Mrs. Cabrera’s seventh-grade PLTW class and Mrs. Anderson’s
eighth-grade PLTW class, students employed professional software to design a playground and
program robots to complete specific tasks, respectively. In each classroom, students’ actions,
body language, and voice intonation indicated high levels of engagement in the learning tasks.
Mrs. Fletcher, a special education teacher at SBMS, also relies heavily on technology to meet the
individual needs of her students. The researcher observed a lesson during which students
worked with computer adaptive literacy programs. She commented during her interview,
“Technology has changed my teaching incredibly. It gives me the ability to meet each student’s
needs in ways I would have never imagined. Also, the students gain confidence because the
programs reinforce them when they respond correctly.”
While the aforementioned examples demonstrate educators employing digital tools at the
modification and redefinition stages of the SAMR model, as well as assimilation of advanced
technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge, the data revealed that many SBMS educators
continue to implement technology at the lower substitution and augmentation levels of SAMR.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 88
Although these instructors may have excellent content and pedagogical knowledge, typically
they do not incorporate technology in ways that reach the TPACK model’s optimum point where
all three types of knowledge intersect. To attain TPACK’s “sweet spot” and the modification
and redefinition stages of SAMR, teachers must provide learner-centered classroom
environments in which students regularly engage with technology in creative, innovative ways to
solve authentic problems. Of the 34 SBMS survey respondents, fewer than 30% answered most
of the time or almost always to the statements, “My lessons embed student use of technology”
and “My lessons encourage creativity and innovation through student use of technology.” A
walkthrough of SBMS classrooms confirmed these data. The researcher witnessed the majority
of SBMS instructors employing a document camera and LCD projector to teach students from
the front of the classroom. In most classrooms, students were not active users of technology;
instead, teachers used technology to deliver traditional pedagogy. The third data point, the
SBMS Google Calendar for reserving classroom sets of Chromebooks, corroborated the
information gleaned from the survey and observations. Records indicated that no SBMS faculty
reserved Chromebooks for student use from September through November 2015. Together,
these survey data, walkthrough evidence, and Chromebook reservation records illustrated that
some SBMS teachers have yet to achieve optimal levels of technology integration and
implementation as represented by the SAMR and TPACK models.
Summary
The goal of this case study was to identify and analyze the dynamics of a K–12 school
that actively integrates and implements technology in curriculum and instruction. SBMS
identifies itself as a STEM academy that provides state-of-the-art technology as an integral
component of its instructional program. This study’s four research questions guided collection
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 89
of rich, thick data through document review, teacher surveys, six lesson observations, and six
staff interviews.
Triangulation of the results from the aforementioned data collection sources coalesced
around three primary themes, each of which addressed two or more of the study’s research
questions: (a) Student-centered instruction cultivates transformative use of technology, (b) ready
student access to technology facilitates its organic use, and (c) a supportive school culture
nurtures teachers’ transformative use of technology. The data further revealed that, at SBMS,
transformative use of technology is not yet systemic but it is practiced dynamically in some
classroom settings.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 90
Chapter Five: Summary, Implications, and Recommendations
Technology has revolutionized nearly every aspect of American society, including our
economy, government, communications, and socialization, but it has yet to transform the K–12
educational system to the same degree (Benjamin, 2014; Wagner, 2010). It is widely recognized
that technology is a powerful tool that can promote student mastery of the four “Cs” of an
effective 21st-century education: collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity
(P21, 2009). While the presence of K–12 classroom technology has increased dramatically, its
integration and implementation in curriculum and instruction are inconsistent. Although teacher
and student access have improved, technology implementation in schools typically requires only
low levels of student cognitive demand and enhances traditional pedagogy (An & Reigeluth,
2011; Cuban, 2009; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). It is time for educators take the leap
into the 21st century. Failing to do so will result in students receiving an irrelevant education
that prepares them for the current world, not the world of the future (Benjamin, 2014).
This study is part of a collection of qualitative case studies examining schools that claim
to embrace instructional technology and implement it in a significant way. A thematic
dissertation team of 10 researchers endeavored to determine the extent to which educators’
applications of digital tools in the classroom affect pedagogy, with a particular emphasis on
identifying factors that lead to maximizing student learning. All of the researchers in this
thematic dissertation group are practitioners in the field of K–12 education. This team
collaborated to develop the study’s research design, including the purpose, problem statement,
research questions, methodology, and data collection instruments. Each researcher conducted his
or her case study at a particular school that met the site selection criteria. While the results of a
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 91
singular case study usually are not generalizable, findings appearing across multiple thematic
case studies increase the probability of applicability in other school and district settings.
This qualitative case study was conducted at SBMS, a suburban urban public school with
a student population that is socioeconomically, racially, and ethnically diverse. SBMS identifies
itself as a STEM academy that features state-of-the-art technology as a cornerstone of its
instructional program. While integration of technology in SBMS classrooms is in process, it is
not yet a significant component of the school’s culture. By consistently promoting teacher
collaboration around the use of technology, SBMS administrators and teacher leaders can alter
the culture to reflect technology as an integral element (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Kim et al., 2013).
Four research questions framed this case study and guided collection of the data.
1. How do educators at SBMS integrate technology to support students’ learning?
2. To what factors do educators at SBMS attribute their knowledge of instructional
technology skills and pedagogy to utilize technology as an instructional tool?
3. In what ways are educators at SBMS provided support for technology integration and
implementation?
4. What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at
SBMS?
Data were collected through document analysis, teacher surveys, lesson observations, and
staff interviews and then examined using Creswell’s (2013) multi-step process for data analysis.
The researcher triangulated the data by crosschecking all four data sources, increasing the
credibility of the results (Merriam, 2009). Two conceptual frameworks guided identification of
transformational technology practices in the data: the SAMR model (Puentadura, 2015) and the
TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Each of these models provided a lens through which
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 92
to assess implementation of classroom technology practices to determine whether they truly
transformed student learning.
Summary of Findings
Three significant themes emerged from interrogation of the data: (a) Student-centered
instruction cultivates transformative use of technology, (b) ready student access to technology
facilitates its organic use, and (c) a supportive school culture nurtures teachers’ transformative
use of technology. The following sections examine these themes in detail, including ways in
which each addresses two or more of the research questions.
Student-Centered Instruction Cultivates Transformative Use of Technology
Transformative uses of technology are not yet systemic at SBMS but they are the norm in
the three PLTW classes where the researcher observed a clear nexus between student-centered
instruction and uses of technology that redefine pedagogy. In these classes, students drove their
own learning and harnessed technology to discover the curriculum, rather than teachers
“covering” it for them. The focus in these classrooms was on student collaboration to solve real-
world challenges, and students utilized technology frequently to reach their goals.
The theme of student-centered instruction fostering transformative uses of digital tools
addresses the research questions that investigate technology integration practices, support, and
beliefs. According to the TPACK and SAMR models, student learning is optimized when
classroom technology practices regularly incorporate the intersection of educators’ technological,
pedagogical, and content knowledge and reach the modification and redefinition levels of SAMR
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Puentadura, 2015). With regard to teachers’ integration practices,
visits to the PLTW classes clearly demonstrated the marriage of student-centered instruction and
transformative technology practices. Interviews confirmed that all three PLTW instructors
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 93
embrace the role of facilitator and enjoy learning with and from their students. To the question
of support for technology use, interviews revealed that the district sponsored all three SBMS
PLTW instructors to attend an intensive 2-week initial training course, followed by annual
refresher sessions. During these PLTW professional development workshops, participants
assumed the role of student and experienced each STEM project as their students would.
Whereas the PLTW teachers consistently implement and integrate technology with students in
transformative ways, many of their colleagues do not. Survey and document review data
demonstrated that fewer than one fourth of SBMS educators embed student use of technology in
the classroom. This finding was corroborated during classroom walkthroughs. Interview data
revealed that each PLTW instructor addressed the research question on beliefs by confirming her
convictions about the importance of offering a learner-centered classroom. Each teacher
passionately shared that, in her classroom, students take ownership and persevere through
challenges to develop their own solutions. To make transformative use of technology in student-
centered classrooms the rule across SBMS, school leadership must build on the foundational
expertise that already exists with the PLTW instructors.
Ready Student Access to Technology Facilitates Its Organic Use
The growing availability of digital tools in classrooms has resulted in students having
near immediate access to facts, figures, and formulas. When students utilize computers, the need
to memorize information is diminished. This reality requires changing content and the pedagogy
employed to teach it, as described by Mishra and Koehler’s (2006) TPACK model. According to
Richardson and Postman (2013), it is more critical to foster students who are able to use
technology to access and assess information when they need it than to ask students to memorize
material and regurgitate it for a test. The theme of ready access to technology facilitating its
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 94
organic use speaks to Research Questions 1 and 3, focusing on implementation and support for
technology, respectively. In the PLTW classes, the researcher observed students’ spontaneous
use of technology to search for information. Technology access fostered teachable moments that
arose out of students’ curiosity. A campus walkthrough demonstrated that each SBMS
classroom features a teacher’s laptop, document camera, and projector. Only the PLTW labs,
special education, and English Learner classrooms provided the 1:1 pupil-to-device ratio that
facilitates students’ organic use of digital tools. SBMS possesses nine portable Chromebook
carts, but teachers are not reserving and using these devices with their students on a regular basis.
In the SBMS classrooms that do not offer 1:1 technology daily, student use of digital
tools is not assimilated into the culture. Although Chromebooks are available for teacher
checkout, they are not a consistent force in most SBMS classrooms. To increase students’
organic use of technology as a factor in the learning process, devices must be available in SBMS
classrooms every day. This is how technology is used in the modern workplace. The connection
to endless funds of knowledge facilitated by computers has the potential to demolish the
classroom walls for students and teachers (Richardson & Postman, 2013). Students’ natural use
of technology can redefine the classroom from an area enclosed by four walls to a virtual space
with limitless information and ideas accessible across the globe.
A Supportive School Culture Nurtures Teachers’ Transformative Use of Technology
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) asserted, “It is . . . important that the system
encourage change by aligning the school’s culture and overall vision with one that incorporates
technology-enabled learning” (p. 180). The concept of a supportive school culture fostering
transformative use of technology addresses the study’s research questions regarding educators’
technology integration practices, acquisition of knowledge, and perceived support. Interviews
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 95
confirmed that PLTW teachers are encouraged to use technology in transformative ways by the
district, their principal, and each other. During these conversations, each PLTW instructor
attributed a great deal of her knowledge of instructional technology skills and pedagogy to the
PLTW training that is paid for by the district. In addition, all PLTW instructors reflected on the
positive impact of daily student access to technology and site support for teacher collaboration
time. Not surprisingly, this theme also targets the research question that assesses teacher support
for technology integration and implementation. The survey data showed that more than 90% of
SBMS teachers agreed that use of technology is encouraged and promoted at their school. Data
from interviews with the principal, three PLTW instructors, and the special education teacher
confirmed that SBMS teachers are supported in taking risks and experimenting with new
technology applications, programs, and devices.
To expand advanced levels of teacher and student technology use at SBMS, professional
development should be hands-on, differentiated, and delivered in the context of the classroom to
the extent possible (Benjamin, 2014; Su & Bay, 2009). Survey data demonstrated that just more
than half of the respondents agreed that SBMS educators are provided with hands-on
opportunities to learn instructional technology. Interviewees acknowledged that current
professional development for technology at SBMS is offered after school and is voluntary. To
ensure that each SBMS educator moves forward with implementation and integration of
technology in the classroom, training and support must be offered during the school day.
Voluntary training sessions held after school result in islands of excellence, not systemic
integration at higher levels across the school. Survey and interview data also confirmed that
SBMS shares access to a technology mentor with other schools in the district. If SBMS hired a
temporary, full-time technology mentor with a strong background in curriculum and instruction,
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 96
this coach could provide technology professional development targeted to the specific
technological, pedagogical, and content needs of each teacher. The goal of hiring this temporary
coach would be to bring professional development for technology in house to increase teacher
capacity. When teachers’ knowledge of and comfort levels with instructional technology vary
greatly, some students are provided opportunities to interact with technology in meaningful ways
that maximize their learning while others are not.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this qualitative case study yield significant implications for K–12
educational practice, including suggestions for recruiting school site leaders, considerations for
designing effective technology-related professional development, and the impacts of student-
centered instruction on technology integration and implementation. For district and school
leaders to continue to evolve with regard to effective use of technology in teaching and learning,
it is critical to recruit administrators who encourage teacher collaboration and risk taking and
who understand the importance of technology in providing students with a relevant 21st-century
education. Candidate experience with and enthusiasm for teacher collaboration, risk taking, and
instructional technology should be taken into consideration during every step of the employment
process: vacancy posting, application screening, interviewing, and reference checking. In the
SBMS classrooms exhibiting the most advanced levels of student and teacher technology use, the
instructors reiterated the impact of supportive school leadership.
Another important implication for educational practice is that professional development
in technology should be differentiated, hands-on, continuous, and provided in context. Survey,
interview, and observation data from this case study revealed that educators at SBMS are at
various levels of proficiency with regard to their own and their students’ use of technology;
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 97
therefore, one-size-fits-all professional development is ineffective. The SBMS principal could
build teacher capacity in the area of technology use by harnessing the expertise that already
exists at the site. Those SBMS educators who are at the enhancement rather than transformation
levels of the SAMR model would benefit from observing how PLTW instructors incorporate
digital tools into their pedagogy. These PLTW on-site technology experts might agree to mentor
individual colleagues during planning periods. Personalized professional development
opportunities in the context of the classroom environment are more likely to move the entire staff
along a line of growth in technology use. One-to-one professional development is more relevant
and less threatening for teachers who are not as proficient as their peers.
Perhaps the most significant implication for practice emanating from this case study is
the connection between student-centered instruction and transformative uses of digital tools. In
those SBMS classrooms where teachers implemented digital tools at the highest levels of the
SAMR and TPACK models, student-centered instruction was the norm. Schools that implement
digital tools successfully focus on adapting pedagogy concurrently with incorporating
technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013). District and site administrators and teacher
leaders must reinforce the importance of student-centered instruction across the curriculum. If
the goal is to prepare students for college, career, and life, they must be given authentic and
engaging opportunities to harness the power of technology in learner-centered classrooms.
Recommendations for Future Research
An analysis of the data and findings for this case study produced four recommendations
for future research. The first recommendation is to identify factors that influence and support
veteran teachers who implement technology in transformative ways. The data revealed that, in
general, less-experienced teachers were more likely to integrate technology in the classroom for
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 98
student use. However, there were a few exceptions to that rule in the observation, interview, and
survey data. What prompted these more experienced teachers to defy the statistics by
implementing technology at higher levels?
The second recommendation for future research stems from the finding that teacher
technology use typically varies based on years of experience in the classroom. Although newly
hired teachers are mostly digital natives with a high degree of comfort with technology, they do
not yet possess the pedagogical and content knowledge to optimize use of digital tools in the
classroom. How have university teacher preparation programs shifted to account for prospective
teachers who are digital natives while still ensuring that these aspiring educators learn effective
pedagogy and content skills?
The interview with and observation of SBMS’s special education teacher inspired the
third recommendation for further study. Pupils in her classroom were working on Chromebooks,
using programs at their assessed reading level. The students appeared to be engaged in the
learning tasks and excited by the online reinforcements that they received for demonstrating
mastery of a specific skill. Adaptive and assistive technologies help to open opportunities for
students with special needs as never before. Future research could investigate the various types
of assistive and adaptive technologies that are available and assess the extent to which these tools
positively affect student learning.
The years following World War II resulted in a significant rise in birth rates and the
subsequent construction of numerous public school facilities. Many of these facilities now
require modernization or will be demolished to make way for safer, more contemporary
buildings. At SBMS, the three PLTW classrooms are situated adjacent to other classrooms that
have been transformed into computer labs. Is this the most effective and efficient use of
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 99
classroom space? Many districts are moving forward with facilities bond initiatives in the next
few years. Research on the topic of school and classroom designs that support student-centered
instruction and student use of technology would help practitioners to make prudent choices
during the facilities master planning process.
Conclusions
Horace Mann, known as the father of American schools, once said, “Education . . . is the
great equalizer of the conditions of men” (as cited in Wong & Casing, 2010, p. 12). Perhaps
Mann’s words have never been more relevant than they are today. With the increase in student
access to technology, there is an exciting opportunity to provide socioeconomically
disadvantaged students at SBMS and schools across the country with entirely new ways of
learning that are engaging, relevant, and empowering. Technology offers a world of possibilities
to students, particularly when integrated and implemented in learner-centered environments
where students use it to create, discover, communicate, collaborate, persuade, and solve
problems. Technology requires rethinking every facet of the K–12 educational system to
reconsider what it means to be educated in the 21st century and to identify the skills that students
need to be successful in the world that they will inherit (Richardson & Postman, 2013). Through
the many shifts in standards, assessments, funding levels, and technologies, the focus must
remain on student learning. Technology is a tool. In the hands of a great teacher, it can make
magic.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 100
References
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, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
P. R., . . . Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (Abridged ed.). White Plains,
NY: Longman.
Aud, S., Fox, M. A., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups 2010-015. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Benjamin, A. (2014). Differentiated instruction using technology: A guide for middle & high
school teachers. London, UK: Routledge.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories and
methods. New York, NY: Pearson.
California Department of Education. (2013). Dataquest. Retrieved from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2014). Empowering learning: California education
technology blueprint, 2014-2017. Retrieved from http://cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/
yr14bp0418.pdf
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 101
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American
Psychologist, 30(2), 116-127.
Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
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 and Development, 53(4), 25-39.
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. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
& Education, 59, 423-435.
Fink, A. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Gall, M. P., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 102
Granger, C. A., Morbey, M. L., Lotherington, H., Owston, R. D., & Wideman, H. H. (2002).
Factors contributing to teachers’ successful implementation of IT. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 18, 480-488.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational
excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
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.
Kelly, D., Nord, C. W., Jenkins, F., Chan, J. Y., & Kastberg, D. (2013). Performance of U.S. 15-
year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy in an international
context: First look at PISA 2012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Kena, G., Aud, S., Johnson, F., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., . . . Kristapovich, P. (2014).
The condition of education 2014. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76-85.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education, 59, 1109-1121.
Labbo, L. D., & Place, K. (2010). Fresh perspectives on new literacies and technology
integration. Voices from the Middle, 17(3), 9-18.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 103
Lambert, J., & Gong, Y. (2010). 21st-century paradigms for pre-service teacher technology
preparation. Computers in the Schools, 27(1), 54-70.
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, J. D. (2008). Does technology integration
“work” when key barriers are removed? Educational Media International, 45, 195-213.
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, J. D. (2012). Do one-to-one initiatives bridge
the way to 21st-century knowledge and skills? Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 46(1), 1-30.
Malcom, S. (2013). Technology in 2020: Educating a diverse population. In R. Nickerson & P.
P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 213-229). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
McLester, S. (2012). Keeping pace with technology innovation. District Administration:
Solutions for School District Management, 48(9), 76-83.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017-1054.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 104
National Association for Gifted Children. (n.d.). Glossary of terms. Retrieved from
http://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/glossary-terms
Pahomov, L. (2014). Authentic learning in the digital age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Perrotta, C. (2013). Do school-level factors influence the educational benefits of digital
technology? A critical analysis of teachers’ perceptions. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 44, 314-327.
Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2001). Stages of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,
Practice, Training, 38, 443.
Puentadura, R. (2015). Learning with technology using SAMR [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.hippasus.com/blog/archives/165
Reeves, D. B. (2009). Leading change in your school. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Richardson, W., & Postman, N. (2013). Students first, not stuff. Educational Leadership, 70(6),
10-14.
Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating
mLearning. Online Learning: Official Journal of the Online Learning Consortium, 18(2),
1-15.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 105
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century
teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of education statistics 2011. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Su, B., & Bay, C. M. (2009). Effective technology integration: Old topic, new thoughts.
International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 5(2), 1-9.
Taylor, L. M., & Fratto, J. M. (2012). Transforming learning through 21st-century skills: The
Who Took My Chalk?model for engaging you and your students. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st-century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco,
CA: Wiley.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming
American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Author.
University of Southern California. (2014). Human Subjects Protection Program (HSSP) policies
and procedures. Retrieved from https://oprs.usc.edu/files/2012/11/Policies-and-
Procedures-Jan-2015.pdf
Vockley, M. (2007). Maximizing the impact: The pivotal role of technology in a 21st-century
education system. Washington, DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 106
Wagner, T. (2010). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new
survival skills our children need—and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Walker, T. (2013). What do the 2012 PISA scores tell us about U.S. schools? Retrieved from
http://neatoday.org/2013/12/03/what-do-the-2012-pisa-scores-tell-us-about-u-s-schools-
2/
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: Free Press.
Wong, O. K., & Casing, D. M. (2010). Equalize student achievement: Prioritizing money and
power. Lanham, MD: R&L Education.

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 107
Appendix A
Document Review Matrix

RQ 1: How do educators at “School X” integrate technology to support students learning?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
How are teachers using instructional
technology in the classroom?
Lesson plans
School plan
Technology plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics
Teacher feedback
How are students using instructional
technology in the classroom?
Lesson plans
School plan
Technology plan
Classroom artifacts
Student work samples
Rubrics

RQ 2: What factors do educators attribute their knowledge of skills and pedagogy to utilize
technology as an instructional tool?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Teacher education programs
Professional Development
Personal knowledge/research
Teacher responses
Professional development records
Staff meeting/training agendas

RQ 3: In what ways are educators provided support for technology integration and
implementation?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Types of PD
Resources
School plan
Professional development records
IT Support Coaching/observation schedules
Site Budget LCAP Plan
Site Budget Process
Coaching – formal and informal
Staff meeting/training agendas
SARC
WASC Documents

RQ 4: What are educators’ beliefs about technology integration and implementation at “School
X”?
Data Needs Potential Document Review Sources
Educators’ Beliefs School Plan
Lesson Plans

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 108
Appendix B
Teacher Technology Survey

Integration of Instructional Technology

Demographic Information 1
0-5
Years
2
6-15
Years
3
16-25
Years
4
26 +
Years
How many years have you been teaching?

Student Learning 1
Rarely or
Never
2
Sometimes
3
Most of
the Time
4
Almost
Always
My instruction involves use of technology.
My lessons encourage creativity and
innovation through student use of
technology.

My lessons embed activities or tasks that
stimulate critical thinking and problem-
solving through student use of technology.

My lessons embed student use of technology
in the classroom.

My lessons embed student use of technology
outside of the classroom.

Students are encouraged to work
collaboratively with other students while
using technology.

Professional development (PD) sessions have
improved my use of technology in the
classroom.

I use technology to differentiate instruction.

Technology
Skills
1

Rarely
or

Never

2

Sometimes

3

Most
of

the
Time

4

Almost

Always

I
use
technology
daily
in
a
variety
of
ways

to
present
lessons.

I
use
technology
in
a
variety
of
ways
to

assess
student
learning.

I
go
out
of
my
way
to
stay
current
on
the

new
innovations
with
technology.

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 109
Technology
Support
1

Rarely
or

Never

2

Sometimes

3

Most
of

the
Time

4

Almost

Always

Use
of
technology
is
encouraged
and

promoted
at
my
school.

IT
support
staff
is
available
to
assist
when

needed.

A
mentor
is
available
to
support

technology
integration.

Use
of
instructional
technology
is
a

component
of
my
school’s
culture.

Teachers
are
provided
with
hands-‐on

opportunities
to
learn
instructional

technology.

Technology
Beliefs
1

Strongly

Disagree

2

Disagree

3

Agree

4

Strongly

Agree

I
support
the
use
of
technology
in
the

classroom.

Instructional
technology
has
a
positive

impact
on
student
learning.

Technology
is
an
important
part
of

teaching
and
learning.

My
classroom
is
student-‐centered.

My
students
are
empowered
to
be

responsible
for
their
own
learning.

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 110
Appendix C
Classroom Observation Protocol

TRANSFORMATIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN K-12 SCHOOLS 111
Appendix D
Interview Protocol

Research Questions Interview Questions

RQ1: How do educators at
school X integrate technology to
support students learning?

1. How would you describe the use of technology in your
classroom?
2. How are students using instructional technology in the
classroom?
3. What are some instructional strategies that technology can help
in differentiating instruction for diverse students?
4. What technology device is used to assist in student motivation?
How do you know?
5. What applications and/or software programs are used to support
student learning?
6. Is there anything else you would you like to share?

RQ2: What factors do educators
attribute their knowledge of
skills and pedagogy to utilize
technology as an instructional
tool?

1. To what do you attribute your background knowledge of
technology?
2. How do you continue to acquire knowledge of technology
device use?
3. How did you learn to integrate technology in your instruction?
4. How do you determine what technology to use with your
students?
5. Is there anything else you would you like to share?

RQ3: In what ways are
educators at School X provided
support for technology
integration and implementation?

1. How does the school support and train teachers to use
technology devices and applications?
2. How does the school make technology accessible to teachers?
3. In what ways are teachers provided support and/or
informational resources regarding integrating technology in the
curriculum?
4. What are some obstacles in implementing technology in student
learning?
5. Is there anything else you would you like to share?

RQ4: What are educators’
beliefs about technology
integration and implementation
at School X?

1. How do you feel about the use of technology?
2. What do you believe are the benefits of technology in the
classroom?
3. Some people say technology takes too much time, what would
you say to this?
4. What advice would you give a novice teacher in the inclusion of
technology in their classroom?
5. What is your favorite technology to use while teaching? Why?
6. Is there anything else you would you like to share?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative case study employed the SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition) and TPACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) models from the research on integration of technology in K–12 settings to investigate the dynamics of a suburban urban middle school designated as a STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) academy that embraces technology in curriculum and instruction. This study was designed to determine the extent to which educators’ applications of digital tools in the classroom affect pedagogy, with particular emphasis on identifying factors that lead to maximizing student learning. The research questions framing the study focused on current technology usage, teacher acquisition of technology skills, support for technology use, and educators’ beliefs about technology in the classroom. Data were collected through document analysis, teacher surveys, lesson observations, and staff interviews and examined using Creswell’s multistep process for data analysis. Findings revealed that student-centered instruction and a supportive school culture are fundamental to transformative use of technology in the classroom. Furthermore, ready student access to devices facilitates organic use of digital tools in the teaching and learning process. This study contributes to extant research by focusing on a school site that claims technology use as a cornerstone of its instructional program. The results provide K–12 educational leaders with significant factors to consider when implementing technology in schools, including the importance of providing differentiated professional development for teachers in the context of their classrooms, recruiting school leaders who support teacher collaboration and risk taking, and shifting from teacher-centered to learner-centered classroom environments.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

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

PDF

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

PDF

Investigating the dynamics of a 21st-century school integrating and implementing technology to enhance teaching and learning: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

Technology practices and 21st century learning: a high school case study

PDF

Transforming teaching and learning with technology: a case study of a California public school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration and innovation in teaching and learning: a case study

PDF

Transformative technology: teaching and learning at a 21st century elementary school

PDF

Embracing the challenge of growing the “T” in STEM and its role in teaching and learning: a case study

PDF

A case study: technology, teaching and student learning

Asset Metadata

Creator Seaton, Carolyn E. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/18/2016

Defense Date 03/03/2016

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

Tag 21st-century education,instructional technology,OAI-PMH Harvest,SAMR,STEM,technology access,technology barriers,technology beliefs,technology integration,technology professional development,TPACK

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Rohrer, Beverly J. (committee member)

Creator Email carolyneseaton@gmail.com,ceseaton@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-229685

Unique identifier UC11279487

Identifier etd-SeatonCaro-4267.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-229685 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SeatonCaro-4267.pdf

Dmrecord 229685

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Seaton, Carolyn E.

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