University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Investigating the lack of use of technology by teachers for instructional activities in the classroom: a gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Investigating the lack of use of technology by teachers for instructional activities in the classroom: a gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

1

INVESTIGATING THE LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS FOR
INSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THE CLASSROOM: A GAP ANALYSIS

by

Joseph Nettikaden

_______________________________________________________________

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

December 2014

Copyright 2014 Joseph Nettikaden

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

2
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my dear and compassionate wife, Suneetha. I know that this
journey has called for the extraordinary level of patience and sacrifice on your part. I just cannot
thank you enough for your dedicated support and love that you have shown all through this
endeavor. I can only hope to provide you with the same level of support and encouragement as
you pursue your dreams in life.
I dedicate this also to our dearest daughter, Mariska. Let this dissertation remind you that
education and hard work are the keys to success no matter what you choose to do in life. When
you find something you love, never stop learning about it and practice to become the best you
can be at it. I want you to know that your life has motivated me to be my best. I hope that my life
motivates you to be your best.
Finally, I dedicate this work to my parents, Chacko and Mary and my in-laws (Mathew
and Valsa) along with my dearest brothers, Varghese and Antony. May God Bless the entire
family and our future generation with continued wisdom and opportunities for lifelong learning.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Going through this program has been a big part of my life’s journey thus far and the
experiences that have enriched my life would not have possible without the exemplary support
and faith bestowed in my abilities by all the people mentioned below.
First and foremost I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my dissertation chair,
Dr. Rudy Castruita, without whose dedicated support, guidance and the early and late evening
web phone calls I would not have been able to complete this challenging journey. I would also
like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Kenneth Yates, Dr. Robert Filback, and
Dr. Cathy Krop for the helping me with their guidance on structuring the study to align with my
future goals and aspirations and also the valuable feedback and critique they have provided. I
would also like to thank Dr. Mark Robison whom I first met as the representative of this Global
Ed.D. Program and interacted with during the information session in Dubai, for the valuable
guidance and encouragement he provided for me to apply to this program.
Secondly, I would like to thank all the members of ESOL Education Leadership team for
giving me this opportunity to pursue this program and also supporting me by providing the
flexibility to combine student life along with my professional responsibility. I hope to enrich the
experience at ESOL Education with the learning I have acquired in this program.
Next, I would like to thank all the professors in the Global Ed.D. Program, each of you
have enriched and deepened my understanding of a K-12 and higher education sector from a
global perspective with great examples, class discussions, hearing from guest lecturers and site
visits provided through the format of this program. I would also like to thank Dr. Nadine Singh
and her dedicated team for providing the relentless support with all the administrative work and
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

4
moral support, without which I could not have handled the invisible pressures that were in-built
into the program.
Last but not the least, I would like to express my utmost and heartfelt gratitude to all my
colleagues in this cohort for providing the high degree of moral support and camaraderie during
the course of this program, without which this could not have been made a truly personalized and
memorable journey for me.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 9
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19
Chapter 3: Methodology 39
Chapter 4: Results and Findings 54
Chapter 5: Solutions 77
Chapter 6: Evaluation and Discussion 95
References 106
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Builder Worksheet 117
Appendix B: Interview Builder Worksheet 121
Appendix C: Observation Builder Worksheet 124
Appendix D: Document Analysis Builder Worksheet 126
Appendix E: Administrator Interview Questions 128
Appendix F: Classroom Observation Protocol 130
Appendix G: Teacher Survey 131
Appendix H: Teacher Interview Questions 136

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational 45
Issues
Table 2. Gap Analysis Validation Method Worksheet 50
Table 3. Survey Respondents (Teachers) 56
Table 4. Interview Respondents (Teachers) 57
Table 5. Interview Respondents (Administrators) 57
Table 6. Knowledge Statements, Types of Knowledge, Technology Category, Mean 60
and Standard Deviation (Descending Order by Mean)
Table 7. Motivation Statements, Types of Measure, Technology Category, Mean and 66
Standard Deviation (Descending Order by Mean)
Table 8. Statement Results for Culture and Organization Category, Mean and Standard 70
Deviation (Descending Order by Mean)
Table 9. Summarizes the List of Validated Causes from the List of Assumed Causes 74
from Table 2 for Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Culture
Table 10. Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions 90
Table 11. Summary of Organization's Main Goal, Short Term Goals, Cascading Goals, 92
and Performance Goals
Table 12. Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline and Measurement of Performance 93
Goals

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Gap analysis process 40
Figure 2. Visual representation of interview findings highlighting the difference 62
between basic and advanced level of usage of all three technologies

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

8
ABSTRACT
This research study applied the gap analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008)
in order to help develop strategies to increase the use of technology by teachers for instructional
activities at Universal American School. The purpose of the study was to identify whether the
knowledge, motivation and organization barriers were contributing to the identified gap. A
mixed-method approach consisting of surveys, interviews and observations was used to collect
data. Fifty-nine teachers participated in a survey; in addition, 6 teachers and 3 administrators
were interviewed, and 3 classroom observations were conducted. The surveys, interviews and
classroom observations helped validate the assumed causes that were formulated after
conducting scanning interviews and reviewing published literature. The key findings were lack
of factual knowledge of technology proficiency standards for teachers and students, lack of
interest in attending professional development workshops, leadership did not set clear
expectations on the use of technology, lack of incentives to use technology, lack of technical
support during classroom time, and lack of peer support groups. Based on the gaps identified
through the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), solutions to close the gaps, along
with a timeline and an evaluation plan for the proposed solutions are discussed in the last two
chapters of the study.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

9
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
With the reality of a flattened global landscape (Friedman, 2005) and the advent of the
knowledge economy, there are many countries with national initiatives focusing on improving
21
st
century problem solving skills by utilizing technology across schools and universities (Inan
& Lowther, 2010). In order to prepare students for future job roles that require proficiency in
problem solving, a significant emphasis is placed on technology implementation and utilization
in classrooms to enhance these skills. To do this effectively, teachers need to be proficient in the
use of technology in classrooms. According to the National Education Technology Plan (NETP)
(U.S. Department of Education, 2010) and Protheroe (2005), the focus is on radically changing
traditional pedagogical practices to develop new methodologies in classroom instructional
practices utilizing advancements in technology.
There are several specific ways in which students use technology-related skills in the
context of 21
st
century problem solving. For example, students world-wide use technology-aided
modeling in various research experiments to solve complex problems. Online communication
technologies are used by students to collaborate in virtual teams along with teachers and other
peer groups. Another common use of technology is for online research and information gathering
for analysis and evaluation. According to Hew and Brush (2007), one of the major barriers for
teachers in integrating technology into instructional activities in classrooms is the lack of specific
technology knowledge and skills, technology supported pedagogical knowledge and skills and
technology-related classroom management knowledge and skills.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

10
Context of the Problem
Universal American School (UAS) is located in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.)
and is part of the Educational Services Overseas Limited (ESOL) organization, which has seven
other international schools that operate in the Middle East region. UAS is an international school
that offers the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IBDP) at the high school level
(grades 11 and 12) along with the option of graduating with an American diploma. For grades 7
to 10, a concept-based curriculum is offered. It focuses on key concepts around which all
learning activities are centered, and students collaborate to deepen their knowledge and
understanding and make connections among themselves, their peers and the world around them.
At the elementary school level (Pre-K through Grade 6) the Primary Years Program (PYP) is
offered along with the common core standards of the United States.
The enrollment for the academic year of 2012-2013 was 1300 students. There are 140
teachers and 150 support staff. The majority of the student population are from expatriate
families from various countries such as U.S.A., Canada, Korea, Middle Eastern and South East
Asian countries and the minority comes from the indigenous population of U.A.E. The teachers
are recruited internationally from other international school settings that offer the International
Baccalaureate (IB) curriculum and have varying levels of teaching experience. Although teachers
sign up for a minimum two-year commitment, on average, they stay for four years.
Mission and Organizational Problem
The mission of Universal American School is for its students to pursue their interests
with a high level of passion and contribute positively as active citizens in their respective
communities. In order to realize this mission, one of the goals of Universal American School is
to increase 21
st
century problem solving skills by utilizing technology. The management strongly
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

11
believes that graduates with a high degree of technology and media literacy will have a higher
potential for employment and, as a result, contribute to the economic progress of their
community (Culp, Honey, Mandinach, & Bailey, 2003). Over the past five years, Universal
American School made significant investments in technology with the goal of preparing students
with 21
st
century skills in problem solving. Upon graduation, all students are expected to be
proficient in problem solving utilizing technology, which is determined through their test scores
and e-portfolio scores. Based on all the technology initiatives undertaken at Universal American
School, the graduating students have not demonstrated the desired level of proficiency, and this
can have a negative impact on the reputation of the school and, hence, risk the future enrollment
figures of the school.
The organizational problem is the lack of utilization of technology for instructional
activities in the classroom and is best described by the discrepancy model based on the Gap
Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2008). In general, teachers are slow in adopting technology and,
with the introduction of any new technology, it takes an average of 2 to 3 years for 50% of
teachers to use it at an acceptable level. There is evidence to suggest that clearly defined goals
outlining the use of technology, the appropriate level of teacher training for the use of these
technologies, and integration of these technologies in instructional activity can lead to improved
student achievement levels (Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010).
Organizational Goal
One of the goals for Universal American School (UAS) is for all students, upon
graduation, to be proficient in the 21
st
century problem solving skills utilizing technology as
measured by the academic achievement scores and e-portfolio scores. The UAS goal is to have
this in place by September 2016. Proficiency in the use of technology for students will be
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

12
measured against the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS.S)
prescribed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). These standards
were adopted by the leadership team at Universal American School with the consideration of
alignment of the internal standards to an internationally accepted standard.
Stakeholders
The stakeholders at Universal American School include teachers, students,
administrators, and parents. The teachers play a key role in ensuring that there is daily use of
technology incorporated into the instructional activities in the classroom. The teachers have
varying levels of technology proficiency. All newly recruited teachers are provided with a basic
technology orientation session before the start of the school year. During the course of the
academic year, they are encouraged to attend in-depth sessions regarding utilization of various
technologies that will enhance their instructional activities in the classroom. Most of these
sessions are not mandatory, and, hence, the attendance at these sessions is very low.
The students use technology for daily communication with peers and parents. This type
of usage is categorized as part of the daily routine activity and not used for measuring increase in
their problem solving skills. The use of technology during instructional activities in the
classroom can serve to gauge the level of proficiency in terms of problem solving. The secondary
level students (grades 7 through 12), on average, own three devices that they bring to school
daily. The students have a high level of access to technology at school and home.
The administrators are of the view that use of technology is vital to achieving the
organizational goal of increasing students’ proficiency in 21
st
century problem solving skills. The
administration is very supportive when it comes to the proposed technology initiatives and
ensures that there are adequate funds for the procurement of the specified technology. However,
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

13
they do not mandate the use of technology in the classrooms, and, hence, the teachers do not
make an effort to integrate technology into their daily instructional activities in the classroom.
The parents, as well as the administration, are of the opinion that use of technology for
instructional activities enhances the proficiency for problem solving. They encourage the use of
technology and support their students with adequate access to technology as needed. The parents
will not be averse to the idea of providing their children with the appropriate technology devices
required for instructional activities in the classroom or integration of technology into the key
assessments of the school. Every stakeholder of the organization wants to ensure that the
organizational goals are met, and they track the progress of the achievement of the set goals.
Stakeholder for the Study
The active participation of 100% of the teachers and administrators will be required to
ensure that the stated objective of 100% of students becomes proficient in the use of technology
upon graduation. The primary stakeholders for this study were the teachers at Universal
American School. In order to achieve the organizational goal of enhancing students’ proficiency
in 21
st
century problem solving, the teachers will have to increase use of technology in daily
instructional activities in the classrooms and integrate technology in their key assessments. The
teachers will need to be provided an adequate level of knowledge, motivation and organizational
support to ensure that they can do so.
Background of the Problem
In today’s globally connected landscape, many countries are revamping their educational
systems with the integration of technology in order to produce a technologically proficient
workforce capable of propelling them to become leaders among the emerging knowledge
economies of the world (Inan & Lowther, 2010). These national initiatives along with rapid
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

14
advancements in technology and the availability of technology are enabling the integration of
technology into the educational experiences for students and teachers all the way from
kindergarten to university. The key skills that employers look for in today’s workforce are
critical thinking, problem solving, digital media literacy and ability to collaborate in virtual
teams (Dede, 2010). With these types of skills in high demand, many developed and developing
countries are revising their K-12 curricula to incorporate these skills into the educational
experiences of students and teachers.
Due to the rapid progress in technological innovation and the impact of globalization, the
need for employees to have the relevant technology skills will continue to grow. Shifts in the
nature of operations of global organizations with an emphasis on knowledge-based work will
require non-routine cognitive skills such as critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration
(Karoly & Panis, 2004). The reality of the future market landscape is going to require all
employed individuals to constantly upgrade their skill sets to remain gainfully employed.
The goal of developing lifelong learners is now part of many educational organizations’
mission statements and goals. Thus, there is a big impetus to reflect this value in the educational
practices of their institutions. There is constant competition among the developed and developing
economies worldwide to become leaders in the global knowledge economy landscape by having
the best qualified workforce. The right qualified workforce will ensure a robust economy and
sustainability of high quality of lifestyle for the citizens of countries that can achieve it. As per a
report published by Stuart and Dahm (1999), titled 21st Century Skills for 21st Century Jobs, the
skill sets needed to succeed in the modern job market are rapidly changing. The executive
summary states:
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

15
In the workplace of the 21st century, the Nation’s workers will need to be better-educated
to fill new jobs and more flexible to respond to the changing knowledge and skill
requirements of existing jobs. Meeting the challenge of employment and training will call
not only for the best efforts of employers, educators, trainers, labor unions, and individual
Americans, but also for new forms of cooperation and collaboration among those groups.
Lifelong skills development must become one of the central pillars of the new economy.
(p. iii)
The art of gathering data from legitimate online resources and using it to drive initiatives
across organizations is gaining momentum as one of the top skills that will be needed in the 21
st

century job market. This skill is referred to as “Digital Storytelling.” Czarnecki (2009) posits
that, like traditional storytelling, digital storytelling helps to build conceptual skills such as
understanding a narrative and using inductive reasoning to solve problems, but the creation of
digital stories also requires the creator to build technology skills through the use of software and
other digital tools. These skills are useful to both children who need them for an increasingly
technology-oriented future job market, and to adults who need them to keep up with a changing
world.
The Stuart and Dahm (1999) report breaks modern skill sets down into basic skills
(reading, writing, and computation), technical skills (computer), organizational skills
(communication, creative thinking, problem solving, analytical), and company-specific skills.
The digital storytelling skill incorporates three of the components (basic, technical and
organizational) deemed as necessary as per the breakdown by the US Department of Education.
According to Dede (2010), there is a magnified emphasis on students worldwide to
acquire the “21
st
century skills,” with various organizations having diverse definitions of what
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

16
21
st
century skills are. Dede (2010) further states that certain major frameworks have been
developed to bring about clarity on the definitions of 21
st
century skills. The framework chosen
as a standard for measuring the technology proficiency of students at Universal American School
(UAS) is the National Educational Technology Standards for students (NETS.S) prescribed by
the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). The six standards for students are
(1) creativity and innovation, (2) communication and collaboration, (3) research and information
fluency, (4) critical thinking, problem solving and decision making, (5) digital citizenship,
(6) technology operations and concepts.
On a more practical application level, the ISTE standards for students stress the creation
of content at personal and group level by using modern technology tools for collaboration, the
use of models and simulations for problem solving, the ability to recognize patterns and trends to
forecast outcomes, the ability to validate the authenticity of information gathered from various
online resources, the safe and legal use of information and technology, and the ability to
troubleshoot systems and applications and learn new technologies.
The educational sector recognized the paradigm shift in the global market landscape
requiring individuals to have a high degree of technology proficiency, and, hence, there is
continuous focus on ensuring students’ technology proficiency across all segments of the
educational system.
Importance of the Problem
The current trends in the global labor market requiring the 21
st
century skills highlight the
need to focus on technology proficiency in the key areas of collaboration and digital media
literacy skills in K-12 education. The focus on students’ development of 21
st
century skills
utilizing technology has become a priority for schools and universities across the world (Dede,
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

17
2010). This priority for students to attain the desired level of technological proficiency is
reflected in the organizational goal of Universal American School. The attainment of technology
proficiency for graduates of Universal American School is a valuable asset that gives them the
necessary advantage during their college careers.
In general, the parent communities of international schools in Dubai are well connected
to each other. This raises the possibility that perceptions are shared regionally and
internationally, via social networking forums, amongst parents potentially looking to move to
Dubai. As a result, negative feedback amongst parents about problems faced by students due to
lack of technology proficiency can cause damage to the reputation of Universal American
School, with a direct negative impact on student enrolment numbers. Prospective parents view
the level of technology being used and displayed during schools visits as a key measure in the
decision making process for the enrolment of their children. Hence, the leadership at Universal
American School has made it an organizational priority and goal to ensure that students achieve
the desired level of technology proficiency. In order for students to attain the desired level of
technology proficiency, technology needs to be explicitly integrated into the learning, teaching
and assessment activities at Universal American School. Therefore, one of the key goals for the
school is to support the teachers in integrating technology into classroom instructional activities.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the root causes of the
lack of desired technological proficiency among students at UAS. The analysis focused on
causes for this problem due to teacher knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational gaps.
Case Study Questions
The questions that guided this study are the following:
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

18
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization barriers that might prevent
teachers at Universal American School from the use of technology in classrooms?
2. What are the recommended solutions to close the knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps that prevent teachers at Universal American School from achieving
their goal of being proficient in teaching 21
st
century skills using technology?
3. What technologies are being used by teachers in the classroom?
4. How is the use of technology being evaluated in the classroom setting?
Methodological Framework
A systematic and analytical method to clarify organizational goals and identify the gap
between the actual performance level and the preferred performance level was implemented to
understand the potential issues and address the potential solution to the problem. Assumed
causes were validated by using surveys, focus groups and interviews.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

19
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Importance of 21
st
Century Skills
The 21st century is dominated by technology-enabled information flow. Chris Dede
(2009) highlights the difference between 21
st
century skills and 20
th
century skills:
The 21st century is quite different than the 20th in the capabilities people need for work,
citizenship, and self-actualization. 21st century skills are different than 20th century skills
primarily due to the emergence of very sophisticated information and communications
technologies. For example, the types of work done by people—as opposed to the kinds of
labor done by machines—are continually shifting as computers and telecommunications
expand their capabilities to accomplish human tasks. (p. 1)
The information explosion created a new set of skills requiring a high degree of
metacognition to create knowledge to perform tasks based on the accumulated information
(Dede, 2009). For example, what a skilled physician does when all diagnostic results are within
normal limits, but the patient is still feeling unwell is expert decision making: inventing new
problem-solving heuristics when all standard protocols have failed. “Complex communication
requires the exchange of vast amounts of verbal and nonverbal information. The information
flow is constantly adjusted as the communication evolves unpredictably” (Levy & Murnane,
2004, p. 94). A skilled teacher is an expert in complex communication, able to improvise
answers and facilitate dialogue in the unpredictable, chaotic flow of classroom discussion.
Ability to collaborate in work groups is regarded as another important 21
st
century
skillset. In an interconnected world, in which people from the various knowledge economies
work synchronously in different time zones and spanning different cultures, a high of degree of
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

20
collaboration is required (Karoly & Panis, 2004). Employees are expected to work in
collaborative teams that involve a high degree of information sharing and communication with a
strong focus on timelines, quality of work and customer satisfaction.
Global Demand for 21
st
Century Skills
Many countries revamped their school curricula to incorporate technology to ensure their
future labor forces have the necessary 21
st
century skills to sustain economic advantage in a
globally connected landscape. Global competition, the Internet, and widespread use of
technology all suggest that the economy of the 21st century will create new challenges for
employers and workers. As suggested by the “21
st
Century Skills for 21
st
Century Jobs” report
published by Stuart and Dahm (1999), for America to compete in this new global economy, it
can either create low-wage, low-skilled jobs or take full advantage of the nation’s labor force and
create high-performance workplaces. If economic success is going to ensure a high quality of life
for all Americans, it will require adopting organizational work systems that allow worker teams
to operate with greater responsibility, authority, and accountability.
Stuart and Dahm (1999) posit that advancements in technology will require a high
magnitude of change in employee skills in the 21st century. Fifty-six percent of establishments
report that restructuring and the introduction of new technology increased the skill requirements
for non-managerial employees. Based on the categorization of skills by Stuart and Dahm (1999),
employers seek employees with a portfolio of basic, technical, organizational and company-
specific skills as described below:
 Basic Skills: The academic basics of reading, writing, and computation are needed in
jobs of all kinds. Reading skills are essential, as most employees increasingly work
with information on computer terminals, forms, charts, instructions, manuals, and
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

21
other information displays. Computation skills are needed to organize data for
analysis and problem solving. Writing is an essential part of communications,
conveying guidance to others, and in establishing a permanent base of information.
 Technical Skills: Computer skills are well on their way to becoming baseline
requirements for many jobs. Workers use a growing array of advanced information,
telecommunications, and manufacturing technologies, as employers turn to
technology to boost productivity and efficiency and to deliver services to customers
in new ways. In 1986, business spending on information technology represented 25
percent of total business equipment investment. By 1996, information technology’s
share had risen to 45 percent. For some industries — such as communications,
insurance, and investment brokerages — information technology constitutes over
three-quarters of all equipment investment. Forty-two percent of production and
nonsupervisory employees in manufacturing and service establishments now use
computers. Moreover, information technology changes rapidly, requiring workers to
frequently upgrade their skills for competency in successive generations of
technology.
 Organizational Skills: New systems of management and organization as well as
employee customer interactions require a portfolio of skills in addition to academic
and technical skills. These include communication skills, analytical skills, problem-
solving and creative thinking, interpersonal skills, the ability to negotiate and
influence, and self-management. More than half of non-managerial employees
participated in regularly scheduled meetings to discuss work-related problems,
indicating the need for these skills.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

22
 Company-Specific Skills: New technology, market changes, and competition drive
companies to innovate, constantly upgrade products and services, and focus on
continuous improvement of work processes. As a result, employees must frequently
acquire new knowledge and skills specifically relevant to the company's products and
services, and their production processes or service delivery modes.
Based on the research by Karoly and Panis (2004), the global labor market will demand
knowledge-based job roles that require strong technology skillsets. Be it any of the latest
emerging technologies -- information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology, the pace of
technological change will rapidly increase in the next 10 to 15 years, which will increase the
demand for highly skilled workers who can develop new technologies and can exploit the same
for production of improved goods and services. The information systems utilized by industries
and corporations now generate vast amounts of data that can be analyzed further to find new
streams of profit, which will require knowledge-workers with skills in critical thinking, problem
solving, and communication to facilitate generating and conveying knowledge for decision
making.
Need for 21
st
Century Skills in Education
Education and training are now considered a lifelong process to stay competitive in the
labor market have an impact on the economic progress of a country in a global landscape. The
interconnectedness of the global labor market is going to affect not only the low skilled labor
workforce but also the highly skilled labor workforce in terms of remaining competitive. Hence,
lifelong learning will be a needed skill for survival (Karoly & Panis, 2004). Technology offers
the potential to support lifelong learning either as part of the job training or through traditional
public and private learning institutions. Both employees and employers will need to share the
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

23
burden of sustaining a culture of lifelong learning to ensure their companies remain competitive
in an interconnected global economy.
According to the National Education Technology Plan (NETP) report by the U.S.
Department of Education (2010), education and a highly skilled workforce will be highly
important for USA’s economic growth, prosperity and ability to stay competitive in a globally
connected world. The NETP recognizes that technology is at the core of virtually all aspects of
our daily lives and, hence, technology must be leveraged to provide engaging learning
experiences and for the assessment of learning in more accurate and meaningful ways. The
challenging and rapidly changing demands of the global economy tell what people need to know
and who needs to learn. There are a lot of advances in learning sciences that show us how people
learn, and technology makes it possible for us to act on this knowledge and understanding. As we
enter the second decade of the 21st century, there has never been a more pressing need to
transform American education or a better time to act. The NETP is a 5-year action plan that
responds to an urgent national priority and a growing understanding of what the United States
needs to do to remain competitive in a global economy.
References are frequently made to economic and social shifts that have made technology
skills critical to the future employment of today’s students, and, more broadly, to the importance
of technology innovation in maintaining the economic and political dominance of the United
States globally (Culp, Honey, Mandinach, & Bailey, 2003). Technology is a central force in
economic competitiveness. The report “Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to
Know More About Technology” provides a compelling argument for the urgency of investing in
technological literacy, broadly defined, stating that increasing the technological literacy of the
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

24
public would improve decision making, increase citizen participation, support a modern
workforce, enhance social well-being, and narrow the digital divide.
As narrated in the report by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills advocates, “To cope
with the demands of the 21st century, people need to know more than core subjects. They need
to know how to use their knowledge and skills—by thinking critically, applying knowledge to
new situations, analyzing information, comprehending new ideas, communicating, collaborating,
solving problems, making decisions” (2003, p. 9).
Increased Use of Technology in K-12 Sector
With the evolution of technologies, the expectations of student learning also changed
significantly. There is increased use of technology in schools worldwide for enhancing
instruction and student learning. One of the factors that drive technology investments in the K-12
sector is the belief that technology can change teaching and learning for the better, improve
productivity of education by lowering its costs, and raise the quality of teaching and learning
(Milton, 2003). Teachers and students use technology as a tool for their own learning by
collaborating in learning communities. Learning communities extend relationships beyond the
classroom, engaging parents, community members and experts. Learners become more skillful in
choosing their own goals, constructing their own strategies, assessing their own knowledge and
monitoring their own progress. Work produced by students is available for access by subsequent
groups working on similar problems. Usage of interactive models and simulations, especially in
mathematics and science, is particularly valuable in helping more learners grasp usually abstract
concepts.
According to the research report by Protheroe (2005), technology, when used
appropriately, stimulates increased teacher-student interaction and encourages cooperative
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

25
learning, collaboration, problem-solving, and student inquiry skills. Students from computer-rich
classrooms demonstrated better behavior and had lower absentee and dropout rates than students
from classrooms lacking computers. When properly implemented, computer technology had a
significant effect on student achievement, as measured by test scores across subject areas and
with students at all levels.
As per the National Education Technology Plan (NETP) report by the U.S. Department
of Education (2010), technology is leveraged to provide access to more learning resources than
are available in classrooms and connections to a wider set of “educators,” including teachers,
parents, experts, and mentors outside the classroom. It can be used to enable 24/7 and lifelong
learning. The NETP presents a model of learning powered by technology, with goals and
recommendations in five essential areas: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and
productivity. An infrastructure for learning is always on, available to students, educators, and
administrators regardless of their location or the time of day. It supports not just access to
information, but access to people and participation in online learning communities. The NETP
recognizes that technology is at the core of virtually every aspect of our daily lives and work, and
we must leverage it to provide engaging and powerful learning experiences and content as well
as resources and assessments that measure student achievement in more complete, authentic, and
meaningful ways. Whatever the subject of study, 21st-century competencies, such as critical
thinking, complex problem solving, collaboration, and multimedia communication, should be
woven into all content areas. These competencies are necessary to become expert learners, which
we all must be if we are to adapt to our rapidly changing world over the course of our lives.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

26
Technology Competency Standards in K-12
There are different technology competency standards being advocated for K-12. Current
conceptual frameworks for “21st Century Skills” include the Partnership for 21st Century Skills
(2006), the Metiri Group and NCREL (2003), the American Association of Colleges and
Universities (2007), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005), and
the revised International Society for Technical Education (ISTE) student standards for
technology in the curriculum (2007) as well as digital literacy standards from the Educational
Testing Service ICT Literacy Panel (2007). All these technology competencies not only
represent skills students should master for effective 21st century work and citizenship, but also
describe the learning strengths and preferences people who use technology now bring to
educational settings.
Measuring the use of technology against a defined set of standards is a challenge in the
K-12 sector (Dede, 2009). Beyond curricular issues, classrooms today typically lack 21st century
learning and teaching in part because high-stakes tests do not assess these competencies.
Assessments and tests focus on measuring students’ fluency in various abstract, routine skills,
but typically do not assess their strategies for expert decision making when no standard approach
seems applicable.
Research studies in education demonstrate that the use of technology (e.g., computers)
can help improve students’ scores on standardized tests (Bain & Ross, 1999), improve students’
inventive thinking (e.g., problem solving) (Chief Executive Officer [CEO] Forum on Education
and Technology, 2001), and improve students’ self-concept and motivation (Sivin-Kachala &
Bialo, 2000) but, with all the investments that have been made in the education sector for
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

27
technology, research shows that the adoption and use of technology in instructional practices has
not been significant (Schrum & Glassett, 2006).
Barriers to Using Technology by Teachers in Classrooms
There are barriers that prevent teachers from using technology in their instructional
practices in classrooms, and these barriers can be categorized into the following three groups of
assumed causes based on the Gap Analysis Framework provided by Clark and Estes (2008):
Knowledge and Skills, Motivation and Organizational Culture.
Knowledge and Skills
The lack of specific technology knowledge and skills, technology-supported pedagogical
knowledge and skills, and technology-related-classroom management knowledge and skills is a
major barrier to technology integration (Hew & Brush, 2007). Lack of specific technology
knowledge and skills is one of the common reasons given by teachers for not using technology
(Snoeyink & Ertmer, 2002; Williams, Coles, Wilson, Richardson, & Tuson, 2000). First,
focusing on technology knowledge and skills is clearly important because technology integration
cannot occur if the teacher lacks the knowledge or skills to operate computers and software.
Snoeyink and Ertmer (2002) found that teachers did not see the value of technology integration
until they developed basic skills such as logging onto the network and basic word processing.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) provide a framework to categorize knowledge into four
different types: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. Lack of knowledge of
technology competency standards by teachers is categorized as lack of factual knowledge. Lack
of knowledge regarding which of the available technologies can be used to perform what activity
is categorized as contextual knowledge. Lack of knowledge regarding how to use the specific
types of technology available in the classrooms is categorized as procedural knowledge. Lack of
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

28
knowledge regarding when to use the specific technology to enhance the instructional activity is
categorized as metacognitive knowledge. Assessments of which types of knowledge teachers
lack need to be performed to address the lack of the particular type of knowledge.
The curriculum has to be reworked with a focus of integrating technology into the various
lesson activities to engage the learners differently. This requires new knowledge and skills
(Protheroe, 2005). In order to effectively teach with technology, teachers will need to learn to
manage the complex interactions among three distinct bodies of knowledge: pedagogical
knowledge, content knowledge, and technological knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2008).
Technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPCK) is a framework for thinking about the
knowledge teachers need for making instructional decisions with respect to integrating digital
technologies as learning tools. Teachers are expected to provide the necessary experiences
required for developing the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that teachers need. This
integrated knowledge is referred to as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) and
is distinct from knowledge from the three domains acquired individually (AACTE Committee on
Innovation and Technology, 2008).
It is generally believed that TPCK is best acquired through candidates’ participating in
the design process as they apply integration skills in real contexts (Koehler & Mishra, 2008).
Both Koehler and Mishra (2005) and Angeli and Valanides (2005) conducted studies that found
statistically significant growth in student technology integration knowledge when they engaged
in designing technology-rich instruction. To facilitate the development of TPCK, it is important
that candidates have opportunities to see technology integration modeled in classes as well as in
field experiences. Hall (2006) found that, when university instructors modeled technology
integration, teachers were able to design lessons that effectively integrated technology to support
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

29
student learning. Additional research has shown that teachers need models and coaches to help
them integrate technology effectively (Glazer, Hannafin, & Song, 2005; West & Graham, 2007).
The lack of technology-related-classroom management knowledge and skills is another
barrier to technology integration into the curriculum. Traditionally, classroom management
includes “the provisions and procedures necessary to establish and maintain an environment in
which instruction and learning can occur and the preparation of the classroom as an effective
learning environment” (Fraser, 1983, p. 68). Classroom management is identified as the most
important factor influencing student learning (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993). Although the
rules and procedures established in a non-technology integrated classroom can apply in a
technology-integrated one, there are additional rules and procedures to be established in the latter
due to the inclusion of computers, printers, monitors, CD-ROMs, and other technology resources
(Lim et al., 2003). Thus, in a technology-integrated classroom, teachers need to be equipped with
technology-related classroom management skills such as how to organize the class effectively so
that students have equal opportunities to use computers, or what to do if students run into
technical problems when working on computers.
Teachers need to be aware of the metacognitive aspect of learning to apply technology in
their instructional practices. The term metacognition refers to the ability to actively control
thinking during learning and problem-solving (Flavell, 1979). When individuals learn to use
strategies, principles or schemas that could help in the process of problem-solving and invention,
they are more likely to be aware of their own thinking during the process of problem-solving and
inventive design and reflect on their experience after accomplishing a task. Zimmerman and
Schunk (1989) define self-regulated learning (SRL) in terms of self-generated thoughts, feelings
and actions that are systematically oriented toward the attainment of students’ own goals.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

30
Research shows that learning about complex and challenging topics and domains in computer-
based learning environments typically involves the use of numerous self-regulatory processes,
such as planning, knowledge activation, metacognitive monitoring and regulation, strategy
deployment, and reflection (Azevedo 2005; Jonassen & Reeves 1996; Lajoie & Derry 1993).
Specifically, technological environments that support learning are often presented as
“cognitive tools,” “metacognitive tools” and “motivational tool” because these technologies can
assist learners in (1) accessing information, (2) developing ideas, (3) communicating with others,
(4) making decisions regarding their learning goals or how much support is needed from
contextual resources, (5) intentionally choosing problem-solving strategies, and (6) effectively
receiving and using feedback from their tutors, peers or technological means (Barak, 2010).
Motivation
First and foremost, if teachers do not value the use of technology in classrooms, then they
will not use technology in their instructional practices. Teachers have to be convinced of the
value of using technology to be motivated to use it in the classrooms. Lack of clarity on the role
of technology in enhancing student achievement could contribute to lack of use. Two surveys by
Project Tomorrow (2010) and Gray et al. (2010) revealed conflicting results from teachers and
administrators on identifying specific technologies that are effective in teaching and learning. As
examples, communication and collaboration tools, mobile computers and devices, Internet
access, and interactive whiteboards were identified in the Project Tomorrow survey. The survey
by Gray et al. identified computers, interactive whiteboards, word processing, presentation
software, and projectors as important.
Teacher attitudes and beliefs towards technology can be another major barrier to use of
technology for instructional practices in classrooms (Hermans, Tondeur, Valcke, & Van Braak,
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

31
2006). According to Simpson, Koballa, Oliver, and Crawley (1994), attitudes can be defined as
specific feelings that indicate whether a person likes or dislikes something. In the context of
technology integration, teacher attitudes toward technology may be conceptualized as teachers
liking or disliking the use of technology. Beliefs can be defined as premises or suppositions
about something that are felt to be true (Richardson, 1996). Specifically, teachers’ beliefs may
include their educational beliefs about teaching and learning (i.e., pedagogical beliefs), and their
beliefs about technology (Ertmer, 2005). Researchers have found that beliefs determine a
person’s attitude (Bodur, Brinberg, & Coupey, 2000).
Ertmer (2005) argued that the decision of whether and how to use technology for
instruction ultimately depends on the teachers themselves and the beliefs they hold about
technology. For example, in an investigation of one elementary school in the United States,
Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, and Woods (1999) found that teachers’ beliefs about technology in
the curriculum shaped their goals for technology use. Teachers who viewed technology as
merely “a way to keep kids busy” did not see the relevance of technology to the designated
curriculum. Computer time was commonly granted after regular classroom work was done and
as a reward for the completion of assigned tasks. To these teachers, other skills and content
knowledge were more important. Research has shown teacher beliefs about technology to be a
major barrier to technology integration.
It is well known that motivation and creativity are positively correlated. Deci (1975) and
Amabile (1996) distinguished between the roles of extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation in the
creative process. Intrinsic motivation exists when fulfillment is reached by merely engaging in a
task and attaining a solution to a problem. It has been found that intrinsic motivation promotes
commitment to work and encourages exploration, flexibility, spontaneity and risk-taking in
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

32
invention and problem-solving (Collins & Amabile, 1999). Extrinsic motivation means that
individuals engage in an activity in order to meet given requirements or to expect some reward,
beyond the self-satisfaction of accomplishing a challenging task. In the school context, external
motivation frequently has to do with evaluation and grades. Since it is commonly accepted that
intrinsic motivation spurs creativity more than external motivation, the challenge for educators is
how to design instruction that engages students in interesting assignments that sparks their
imaginations and intrinsic motivation.
Zimmerman et al. (1992) stress that self-regulation depends strongly on self-efficacy
beliefs because perceived self-efficacy influences the level of goal challenge people set for
themselves, the amount of effort they mobilize, and their persistence in the face of difficulties.
Self-efficacy is defined as people’s beliefs in their capability to produce designated levels of
performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives (Bandura 1997). It is a
belief that one has the capabilities of executing the courses of actions required to manage
prospective situations. It is important to understand the distinction between self-esteem and self-
efficacy. Self-esteem relates to a person’s sense of self-worth, whereas self-efficacy relates to a
person’s perception of his/her ability to reach a specific goal. Self-efficacy is a better predictor of
task-specific goals and performance than more global evaluations, such as self-concept and self-
esteem. Studies in which general or global self-concept was compared to specific achievements
reported weak correlations (Pajares and Schunk 2001).
According to Bandura’s (1997) social-cognitive theory, learners with low self-efficacy
avoid difficult tasks and have low aspirations and a weak commitment to goals. They interpret
poor performance as low aptitude, and they lose faith in their capabilities. Bandura (1997)
maintains that self-efficacy beliefs are constructed from four principal sources of information:
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

33
(1) an active mastery of experience that serves as an indicator of capability; (2) vicarious
experience that alters efficacy beliefs through the transmission of competencies and comparison
with the attainment of others; (3) verbal persuasion and allied types of social influences that one
possesses to master a given task; and (4) physiological and emotional states that affect people’s
judgment of their capabilities. Bandura (1997) indicates that the relevant information for judging
personal capabilities, whether conveyed inactively, vicariously, persuasively or physiologically,
is not inherently enlightening. It becomes instructive only through cognitive processes of
efficacy formation and through reflective thought.
Regarding teaching and learning in school, it is important to acknowledge that an
individual’s self-efficacy beliefs are context bound. A learner may have high self-efficacy with
respect to knowledge and skills in a particular school subject, but low self-efficacy as regards
another subject. Therefore, technology education provides tools for fostering students’ self-
efficacy beliefs that are less common in other areas learned at school. This point is especially
important in efforts aimed at increasing the self-efficacy beliefs of low-achieving students in
technology education (Barak 2004).
Organizational Culture
There are several barriers that are categorized as organizational and cultural barriers that
prevent teachers from using technology in their instructional practices in classrooms, and lack of
adequate professional development opportunities has been reported as a major one (Milton,
2003). School administrators need to factor in adequate levels of professional development
opportunities for teachers. This has to be part of the school schedule planning efforts. Teachers
and administrators participated in a 2009 survey by Project Tomorrow where teachers revealed
that, in order to use technology, there are five very important in which they need training:
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

34
technology in classroom (75%), incorporating digital resources in a lesson (68%), locating and
using electronic teaching aides (67%), creating and using video or podcasts (57%), and using
electronic productivity tools (57%) (Project Tomorrow, 2010). The school administrator
participants of the survey (90% district administrators and 92% principals) acknowledged the
need for training and reported that effective implementation of instructional technology is
important or extremely important to their mission (Project Tomorrow, 2010).
Evidence indicates that professional development plays an important role in education
(Guskey, 2000) and technology practice (Chen, 2008; King, 2002; Lumpe & Chambers, 2001).
In a two-year study of 307 teacher participants, Lumpe and Chambers (2001) found 14
categories of contextual factors which influence teachers’ beliefs in using technology:
“resources, professional development, internet access, quality software, classroom structures,
administrative support, parental support, teacher support, technical support, planning time, time
for students to use technology, class size, mobile equipment, and proper connections” (p. 103).
In a similar study related to technology use, Chen reported that teacher training, classroom
pedagogy, and perceived capability have a direct effect on Internet use, with teacher training as
the most significant determinant of Internet use. Prior research conducted by King indicated that
professional development not only improved pedagogy but also practice in using educational
technologies. This study included 175 experienced teachers over 36 months incorporating a
mixed research approach of qualitative and quantitative research, reconfirming the importance of
professional development for instructional technology integration. The body of professional
research suggests that teacher training, or professional development, is one of the more important
factors influencing the use of classroom technologies among teachers.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

35
According to a National Center for Education Statistics survey (2000), almost all (99%)
public school teachers had access to computers and the Internet at school and more than half
(66%) indicated that they used computers or the Internet for classroom instruction. Teachers who
had completed at least 32 hours of professional development reported that they felt very well
prepared and were more willing to create assignments for computer and Internet use than those
teachers who received less than 32 hours of professional development in the last three years.
Jenson and Rose (2001) offer an operative list of the characteristics (best practices) for
professional development for successful technology integration: it must be scalable and
sustainable, allow for on-site work in schools and classrooms, include appropriate incentives in a
facilitating environment, be activity based and allow for discovery, be flexible and offer ongoing
support. The support needed is in curriculum and pedagogy as well as technical services.
According to Hew and Brush (2006), lack of technical support is seen as another major
organizational and cultural barrier. Teachers need adequate technical support to assist them in
using different technologies. Employing a limited number of technical support personnel in a
school severely hinders teachers’ technology use. More often than not, these technical support
personnel were overwhelmed by teacher requests and could not respond swiftly or adequately
(Cuban et al., 2001). Without good technical support in the classroom, teachers cannot be
expected to overcome the barriers preventing them from using technology (Lewis, 2003).
Pelgrum (2001) found that, in the view of teachers, one of the top barriers to use of technology in
classrooms was lack of technical support.
Lack of leadership support is seen as another barrier to teachers’ use of technology in
classrooms during their instructional practices. Administrators were critical to the success of the
community because, as Gibson (2001) states, “[t]he number one issue in the effective integration
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

36
of educational technology into the learning environment is not the preparation of teachers for
technology use, but the presence of informed and effective leadership” (p. 502). Since effective
professional development combines researchers’ expertise in theory with school-level practical
considerations, Peel, Peel, and Baker (2002) suggest that teacher-educators as well as school
administrators have to be part of the training programs. Lack of clarity of goals and expectations
from leadership of the school as to what needs to be achieved with the use of technology in
classrooms is a major component of leadership support. According to Schrum and Glassett
(2006), teachers only do what they are told to do, so, unless leadership of the school clearly
states what is expected of teachers, they will not use technology to meet the curriculum
requirements. Lack of institutional support, from encouragement by administrators to try new
technologies to providing funding specifically for technical support and technology purchases,
becomes a major barrier to the infusion of new technologies in an institution. Institutional and
technical supports are inseparable due to the administrative privilege of hiring personnel
(Rogers, 2000).
Lack of peer support group or a professional learning community is seen as another
barrier for teachers’ use of technology in their classroom instructional practice. An
organizational culture of collaboration caters positively to the learning environment and
facilitates sharing of best practices. As per the research study by Cifuentes, Maxwell and Bulu
(2011), presence of professional learning community in schools supports technology integration
in classroom instruction. The professional learning community facilitated expansion of teachers’
technical skills and knowledge of resources and implementation and classroom management
strategies when integrating technologies. At the school level, DuFour (2004) says that
professional learning communities “require the school staff to focus on learning rather than
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

37
teaching, work collaboratively on matters related to learning, and hold [themselves] accountable
for the kind of results that fuel continual improvement” (p. 6).
Several theorists provided a rationale for creating professional learning communities to
support educational practices. For instance, Michael Fullan (2002) suggests that information only
becomes knowledge through dialogue and meaning making. According to Pert (1993), adults
need to complete challenging tasks in collaboration with others and with a minimal level of
threat or risk in order to learn new skills. Buzan (1991) identifies some of the factors that support
successful adult learning: a state of relaxed alertness, allowing an emotional effect, and
supporting multiple pathways to memory (Gregory & Parry, 2006).
Being part of a learning community increases the likelihood that such factors will be
present during professional development. Professional learning communities provide a social
context for dialog and experimentation to support teacher growth. Being part of a professional
learning community helps to improve teachers’ confidence in the use of technology as they feel
they have a peer level network support group they rely on for support.
Summary
Acquiring 21
st
century skills is deemed necessary for competing at an individual level for
jobs and also at a national level for economic sustainability. The 21
st
century skills require the
knowledge of using technology in a variety of ways to gather, decipher and communicate
information within groups. The 21
st
century jobs require metacognitive knowledge based
skillsets rather than routine and repetitive skillsets. To address these demands, countries changed
their school curricula to incorporate the use of modern technology into their instructional
practices. Determining how best to support and advance high-quality use of educational
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

38
technology in K-12 settings continues to be a prominent concern for both practitioners and
policymakers.
Technology presents the potential to act as change agent to make the shift from a teacher-
centered classroom to that of learner-centered practice, which puts the learner in control of
his/her learning. This shift in the teaching and learning practice requires teachers to become
more proficient in the use of technology. Just providing teachers access to technology does not
create the required change in the instructional practice. In order to bring about the desired
change, there is a need for a deliberate plan of action involving providing teachers the required
knowledge and skills, along with a supportive organization culture that motivates the teachers to
use technology for enhancing student learning.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

39
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The goal at Universal American School is that all students, upon graduation, will be
proficient in 21
st
century problem solving skills utilizing technology. The leadership team of the
school wants to ensure that the teachers at Universal American School become proficient in their
use of technology for instructional practices in the classroom and that the school is considered a
pioneer in this regard as one of leading providers of K-12 education in Dubai, United Arab
Emirates.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the reasons teachers do not use technology
for instructional practices during class periods to achieve the desired level of technology
proficiency standards using technology at Universal American School (UAS). The analysis
focused on causes for this problem due to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation,
and organizational issues. Currently, only 30% of teachers are assessed as being technology
proficient. The organizational goal is that 100% of teachers will be proficient in the use of
technology during instructional activities in the classroom. The gap that currently exists is 70%.
Case Study Questions
The questions that guide this case study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization barriers that might prevent
teachers at Universal American School from the use of technology in classrooms?
2. What are the recommended solutions to close the knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps that prevent teachers at Universal American School from achieving
their goal of being proficient in teaching 21
st
century skills using technology?
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

40
3. What technologies are being used by teachers in the classrooms?
4. How is the use of technology being evaluated in the classroom setting?
The framework used for analysis of the data gathered was the Gap Analysis Model (Clark
& Estes, 2008) as mentioned in The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance (Rueda,
2011). The three key dimensions were teacher knowledge and skill, teacher motivation, and
organizational and contextual factors. The key stages in process model were to determine the
goals, measure the current achievement, and measure the gap between current achievement and
desired goal, analyze the causes for the gaps, recommend solutions, implement the recommended
solution and evaluate of the implemented solution. The gap analysis process is depicted in Figure
1 below.

Figure 1. The Gap analysis process

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

41
Assumed Causes of the Performance Gap
In many organizations, there is a tendency to prescribe quick solutions based on
presumptions without taking a systematic approach understanding the root cause of performance-
related problems. In many instances, these quick solutions do not bring about the desired
outcomes of change in performance and lead to wasted time and effort. A thorough investigation
into the causes of performance gaps should include three components: (1) informal interviews
with stakeholders; (2) learning, motivation, and organization/culture theory; and (3) review of
the literature on the specific topic under question.
Scanning Interviews
Personal knowledge and informal interviews with stakeholders provide the first valuable
source of information about the performance problem addressed. These causes are discussed next
in the categories of knowledge, motivation and organization.
Knowledge and skills. Based on the informal discussions and personal knowledge
gathered, the teachers lack knowledge in identifying and setting the goals of what needs to be
achieved by integrating technology into classroom activities. The teachers currently also lack
skills regarding how to use technology for the various classroom activities.
Motivation. Based on personal observation, it appears that, if teachers face issues in the
first attempt of using technology, then the motivation to make further attempts drops
substantially to the point they almost become “technophobic.” The primary reason given by
teachers is that the number one fear factor for any teacher is to be perceived as unknowledgeable
by his/her class group and, hence, lose control of the class group. The lack of motivation by
teachers to master any technology is compounded by fear that, by the time they master a
particular technology, it becomes outdated and they have to master new one.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

42
Organization. The teachers feel that, along with adequate professional development
plans, there needs to be sufficient technology support staff to be available during the initial phase
of implementation to ensure that technical issues are fixed in a timely manner. The general
perception among teachers is that the leadership team does not convey a strong commitment to
the use of technology for classroom activities. This sends mixed signals to the teachers and they
are left with the choice of not using it.
Learning and Motivation Theory
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) provide a framework to categorize knowledge-related
assumed causes. They discuss knowledge issues stemming from a lack of factual, conceptual,
procedural and metacognitive knowledge. This framework was applied in the context of the
stakeholder performance problem below. When it comes to motivation, the Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analytic framework identifies three key indices of choice, persistence and mental
effort. Assumed motivational causes of the performance problem at hand are discussed based on
this framework. Finally, Clark and Estes (2008) address organizational and cultural barriers that
need to be considered when analyzing performance problems and these will be applied to the
performance problem at the end of the section.
Based on Clark and Estes (2008), teacher beliefs have a direct impact on their
effectiveness in terms of what they attempt to learn. Most teachers seem to be convinced that
they are not capable of learning to use technology effectively in classrooms and are very
skeptical when it comes to trying new technology. As a result, they choose not to attend the
training workshops and explore ways to integrate technology for classroom activities.
Knowledge and skills. UAS teachers lack the factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive knowledge necessary to use technology in their instructional practices. In
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

43
addition, the teachers do not know how to self-regulate their learning about technology in order
to integrate it into the instructional activities in their classrooms. The teachers are not
metacognitively aware of how they can change their teaching strategies by integrating
technology in their daily lesson plans.
Motivation. Teachers exhibit a lack of choice that may stem from the lack of value they
seem to place in the approach of using technology in classroom activities. Some teachers, after
choosing to use technology, do not put forth the mental effort and persistence necessary to
effectively integrate technology into their curriculum. The teachers do not understand the
implications of not attending the training workshops and other professional development
opportunities. Per Clark and Estes (2008), they lack the persistence to attempt again with some
additional knowledge and master the skills needed to use technology in the instructional
activities.
Organization. With regard to the organization and cultural factors that add to the
organizational issues, lack of goals and procedures to measure progress is a key organizational
factor. Lack of alignment of structures and processes with goals is another key factor. Lack of
continuous monitoring and support by the leadership team is another key factor. Lack of a
professional learning group for teachers to share experiences and learn from their peers, within
Universal American School, can be rationalized as cultural problem. There are no rewards or
incentives for teachers who do integrate well into the instructional activities in the classroom.
Assumed Causes from the Review of the Literature
An important source for generation of assumed causes is the topic-relevant literature,
including empirical, peer-reviewed research, “white papers,” government documents and other
relevant sources. This body of research allows for the problem to be examined from a larger
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

44
context to ensure that assumed causes that did not emerge from personal knowledge or theory are
also considered. The knowledge, motivation and organizational causes are discussed from the
review of relevant literature.
Knowledge and skills. A key component to ensure that teachers use technology in
classrooms is to provide them with an appropriate level of professional development along with
an adequate amount of technical support during the initial phase of implementation (King, 2002).
Appropriate levels of professional development need to be factored into any technology initiative
along with adequate technical support, particularly during the initial implementation phase.
Motivation. The integration of technology into the classrooms is likely to be
unsuccessful unless there is an understanding of how teachers’ attitudes and beliefs can affect the
use of technology in classrooms (Pedersen, 2006). Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs need to be
addressed in a manner that can have a positive impact on the use of technology in classrooms.
Teachers need professional development sessions with a focus on highlighting the benefits of
using technology for classroom instruction. This is in addition to the professional development
sessions that focus on the procedural use of technology in classrooms (Mulqueen, 2001).
Organization. Leadership commitment is a key component to ensure that teachers get
the consistent message and importance of the goal (Greaves, 2012). As per the research findings
of Milton (2003), it is difficult to define the achievement of success in any technology
integration initiative in the absence of explicitly stated objectives and outcomes. Clearly defined
goals and milestones will provide a roadmap for teachers to ensure their activities are aligned
towards achieving the goals. The next critical factor is dedicated time in the weekly schedule of
teachers for incorporating the newly acquired knowledge into practice (Hew & Brush, 2007).
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

45
Summary. A summary of the sources of assumed causes categorized as Knowledge,
Motivation, and Organization is found in Table 1.

Table 1
Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Issues
Sources

Causes Knowledge Motivation Organizational
Scanning
interviews,
personal
knowledge
1) Lack of clear
personal goals
identifying what needs
to be achieved using
technology
2) Lack of skills in
how to integrate
technology into
classroom activities
1) If teachers face issue
with technology during
the first attempt, then
there is lack of
persistence to try again
2) Teachers feel that by
the time teachers
master any particular
technology, the
existing technology
becomes outdated and
they have to now put in
effort to learn the new
technology.
3) Being an
international school,
the teachers feel that
they are here only for a
short period of time,
thus taking the effort to
develop the technology
proficiency is not
necessary
1) Inadequate
professional
development on the use
of technology
2) Shortage of technical
staff to provide the
necessary assistance
during class periods
3) Realistic expectation
of timeframes for
adoption and use of
technology need to in
place
4) The leadership does
not communicate
effectively to teachers
about their commitment
to the integration of
technology

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

46
Table 1, continued
Sources

Causes Knowledge Motivation Organizational
Learning and
motivation
theory
1) Not knowing they
can change their own
thinking and self-
regulate lack of both
conceptual and
procedural knowledge
necessary to integrate
technology
2) Lack of self-
regulation and not
knowing how to
monitor and adjust
their learning
(metacognition)
1) Teachers are not
motivated to attend
technology workshops
that are held at school
2) The teachers don’t
want to put in the
mental effort to learn
the ways of integrating
technology in classroom
activities
3) If the technology fails
does not work in the
intended way, then the
teachers are discouraged
to use it again during
their class periods
which reflects a lack of
persistence on their
behalf
1) There are no rewards
or incentives for those
teachers that integrate
technology well in
classrooms
2) Lack of clear goals
and ways to measure
progress
3) Lack of support from
leadership team
4) Lack of a
professional learning
group for teachers to
share experiences and
learn from peers
Background and
review of the
literature
1) Ensuring that there
is adequate level of
professional
development provided
to teachers
1) Teachers do not feel
that technology
enhances the quality of
instruction. As a result
they place a low value
on the use of
technology.
2) Self-efficacy affects
teachers choice,
persistence and effort
1) Leadership
commitment is an
absolute necessity to
bring about the desired
organizational change
2) Clear expectation of
outcomes have to be
outlined by school
leadership for teachers

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

47
Sample and Population
The unit of analysis for this study is the teachers at Universal American School. The
population for the study consisted of 143 teachers, of which a total of 59 returned the survey. Six
interviews were conducted, with three from each group identified based on the survey responses.
Three classroom observations were conducted as a follow-up to the interviews. Document
analysis was conducted with the appraisal document used by the administration as a way to
assess the level of technology integration in the classroom. The three administrators were the
Director, Principal of Secondary school and the Principal of Elementary school. All participants
were over 18 years of age, and participation was voluntary. The competencies used to measure
the level of technology proficiency of teachers were the same for the entire sample.
Instrumentation
The methods used in this study to gather data for analysis were a mix of qualitative and
quantitative data. According to Patton (1990), a mix of both qualitative and quantitative methods
is essential to make a research case study strong, and triangulation of data help with validation of
the results. The quantitative set of data was gathered in the form of survey responses of teachers
and administrators. The qualitative aspect included in-depth individual interviews of teachers and
administrators, classroom observations, and document analysis of feedback forms of technology
workshop sessions, teacher evaluations of technology integration specialists to gather as much
information about teachers’ perspectives on the barriers they face to achieve technology
proficiency.
Survey. In order to measure the gaps in knowledge, motivation and organizational
culture, a survey instrument was created based on the questions outlined in the survey builder
worksheet attached as Appendix A. The survey was used to identify the various kinds of
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

48
knowledge gaps (factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive). The survey used closed
questions with responses captured using a Likert scale. The survey was anonymous and set up as
an online survey. An email was sent to all the participants outlining the purpose of the survey
and an embedded link to access the survey. A copy of the survey builder worksheet is attached as
Appendix A.
Interviews. In order to triangulate data, in-depth interviews of teachers and
administrators were conducted. The interview questions were open-ended to identify the gaps in
knowledge, motivation and organizational culture. In addition, questions regarding technology
that is most suited to classroom instruction and validating level of technology proficiency during
the recruitment process and evaluation of technology use in classrooms were included in the
interview. A copy of the interview builder worksheet is attached as Appendix B.
Observations. Classrooms sessions were part of the observations to identify and
document the various actions being performed by teachers with regards to the use of technology
in the classrooms. The observation protocols were as follows: to be set up prior to the start of the
class session and observe preliminary action taken by teachers prior to the start of the class.
Particular attention was paid to the interaction between students and teachers, the use of
technology in classrooms, and technology troubleshooting procedures. A copy of the observation
builder worksheet is attached as Appendix C.
Document analysis. The following documents, such as the feedback forms from the
technology workshops, teacher evaluations documents, and faculty meeting minutes pertinent to
the discussions of technology use were analyzed to gather information regarding the gaps in
knowledge, motivation and organization. A copy of the document analysis builder worksheet is
attached as Appendix D.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

49
Data Collection
Survey. The quantitative data was collected in the form of online surveys using
Qualtrics or similar technology on a hosted cloud-based solution for ease of administration and
generation of required reports. The survey was voluntary and the identity of participants was
kept anonymous. The data was stored in an online secure account and was only accessible with
administrative privileges. The administrative privileges to access survey response data resided
only with the case study researcher. The data was stored until the end of the study.
The survey gathered demographic information as to grade level, subject (if applicable),
years of teaching experience at Universal American School and total years of teaching
experience. The survey gathered details on knowledge, motivation and organizational aspects
with regards to use of technology in classrooms. Data was collected in the forms surveys,
interviews, observations and document analysis. Surveys were sent to 143 teachers.
Interviews. In-depth interviews with six teachers and three administrators were
conducted to gather qualitative data. The interview was based on open-ended questions to gather
details on the knowledge, motivation and organizational aspect of lack of technology use in
classrooms. Additional questions to gather details on any specific technology that may be
regarded as helpful for classroom instruction, assessing the level of technology proficiency at the
time of recruitment and methods to evaluate the use of technology in classrooms were included
as part of the interviews.
Observations. Classroom observations were divided into three parts. The first part of the
observations was conducted ten minutes prior to the start of the class to gather details on the
nature of activity being performed for technology setup. The second part was the teacher and
student interaction during the class session to gather details on what kind of technology is used
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

50
and how it is used. The third part was observation of the activity of troubleshooting of
technology during class session when applicable.
Documents. To triangulate the data and validate the findings, documents such as
feedback forms from prior technology workshops, prior teacher evaluations by technology
integration specialists in the use of technology, technology reports sent to leadership of the
school, faculty meeting minutes were used to gather relevant data.

Table 2
Gap Analysis Validation Method Worksheet
Assumed Cause
Survey/
Assessment Interview Observation
Document/
Artifact
Knowledge
Lack of knowledge
about the
technology
proficiency
standards for the
school (6 teacher
competencies)
I am able to list the
technology
proficiency
standards at UAS
Can you please
elaborate on the
technology
proficiency
standards of
UAS?
Review any
existing
documents
outlining the
technology
proficiency
standards of the
school
Lack of skills in
how to integrate
technology into
classroom activities
A survey question
to identify the level
of confidence in
using the various
technologies in the
classroom
Observations
during class
sessions to
observe the nature
of instructional
activity with
technology

Lack of knowledge
how to use which
technology for
what classroom
activity
I know how to
classify the
technology
activities into the
appropriate
technology
proficiency
standards
How do you
make a
determination of
which technology
to be used for the
required
classroom
activity?
Observations
during class
sessions to
identify which
technology is
being used when

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

51
Table 2, continued
Assumed Cause
Survey/
Assessment Interview Observation
Document/
Artifact
Motivation
Teachers do not
choose to attend
technology
workshops
I learn a lot from
the technology
workshops
Do you find the
technology
workshops
useful?
Observations
during technology
workshops to
determine the
attendance and
activity in the
workshop sessions

Teachers are not
willing to put the
mental effort to
learn how to
integrate
technology into
the classrooms
I make a consistent
effort to implement
the knowledge
gained from
technology
workshops
What are the
barriers that you
face when
attempting to use
technology in
classrooms?

Due to the rapid
pace of technology
updates teachers
are not willing to
apply the
necessary mental
effort to master the
available
technology
I am not interested
in mastering the
technology
proficiency
standards
Do you find the
introduction of
new technology
very frequently
deters you from
learning the use
of technology in
classrooms?

The length of the
employment
contract (2 years)
deters them from
learning any new
technology
effectively
I am not interested
in learn new
technology as the I
intend to stay only
for the length of my
employment
contract (2 years)
Do you find the
length of the
employment term
to be de-
motivational
factor in your
attempts of
mastering
technology?
Review of
documents
provided to
teachers at the
time of
recruitment

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

52
Table 2, continued
Assumed Cause
Survey/
Assessment Interview Observation
Document/
Artifact
Organization
Lack of adequate
professional
development
I get adequate
professional
development for
use of technology
as per the required
technology
proficiency
standards
Do you get the
adequate level of
professional
development
opportunities in the
area of use of
technology in
classrooms?

Lack of technical
support during
class periods
I am provided with
adequate technical
support to use
technology
effectively in
classrooms
Do you get adequate
level of technical
support for the
effective use of
technology in
classrooms?
Observations
during class time
to identify the
level of technical
support available
for teachers

Lack of clear
communication
by leadership on
the expectation
of the use of
technology
I am clear on the
expectations on
the use of
technology set by
the leadership of
the school
Do you have clear
expectations from
leadership in terms of
the use of technology
in classrooms?
Observations
during faculty
meetings on
discussion of
technology
Review of the
school
technology plan
document
Lack of
incentives for
effectively using
technology in
classrooms
I am provided with
incentives for
effective use of
technology in
classrooms
Are you provided with
additional incentives
to use technology
effectively in
classrooms?

Lack of
evaluation
methodologies to
measure the use
of technology in
classrooms
I am aware of
evaluation
methodologies for
the measuring the
use of technology
in classrooms
Are you provided with
a good understanding
of how you will be
evaluated in the use of
technology in the
classrooms?
Review of any
teacher
evaluation
documents in
the use of
technology
Lack of
assessment of
prior technology
skills
I have been
assessed on my
technology skills
prior to my start
date
Do you think prior
assessment of
technology
proficiency of teachers
will be a good practice
during the hiring
process?

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

53
Data Analysis
The quantitative data collected from the surveys was analyzed using Microsoft Excel to
calculate mean, median, mode, variance and standard deviation. Frequencies and common
themes categorized into knowledge, motivation and organization were analyzed. When coding
whether the gap is caused by lack of knowledge and skills, types of knowledge were categorized
as factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge. When assessing whether there
is a lack of motivation, items addressing active choice, persistence and metal effort, variables
associated with motivation were looked at in terms of interest, self-efficacy, attributions, and
goal orientation. For organization and culture, policy procedures, resources, values and culture
were analyzed.
For the qualitative data collected through interviews, the text of the transcripts were
coded using symbols that represent the categories of knowledge and skills, motivation and
organization to capture and analyze relevant information and identify causes. The qualitative
data gathered through observations were categorized into the three gaps of knowledge,
motivation and organization. The qualitative data collected through document analysis provide a
comprehensive way to compare what is learned through observations, the survey, and the
interviews.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

54
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND FINDINGS
One of the goals for Universal American School (UAS) is for all students, upon
graduation, to be proficient in the 21
st
century problem solving skills utilizing technology. In
order for students to be proficient in the use of technology in accordance with the standards, the
teachers at Universal American School need to be proficient in the use of existing technology for
instructional purposes. The aim of this research study was to identify the causes for the lack of
use of technology by teachers in classrooms and to recommend solutions to increase the use of
technology by teachers in classrooms. The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model
served as the framework for the project. The model identifies whether the lack of use of
technology in classrooms by teachers is caused by lack of knowledge, motivation or
cultural/organizational barriers.
The methods used in this study to gather data for analysis were a mix of qualitative and
quantitative data by means of a teacher survey, interviews, classroom observations and document
analysis. An electronic survey was sent to 143 teachers, of which a total of 59 survey responses
were received. Two groups were identified based on the analysis of survey responses according
to the level of usage of technology. A total of six interviews were conducted, with three from
each group identified based on the survey responses. Three classroom observations were
conducted as a follow-up to the interviews. The document analysis involved reviewing the
appraisal document used by the administration as a way to assess the level of technology
integration in the classroom. The document analysis was conducted prior to the interviews. The
results of survey and data analysis of interviews and classroom observation were organized by
the categories of the assumed causes: knowledge, motivation and organization.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

55
Participating Stakeholders
The teachers of Universal American School from grades (K-12) were the main
stakeholders from whom the data were collected to validate the assumed causes. The teachers
interviewed and observed in the classrooms were from both elementary (K to 6) and secondary
(7 to 12). Of the total number of survey respondents, 74% (44) were female and 26% (15) were
male. The years of teaching experience of the respondents varied from zero to over twenty years,
with 22% (13) in the five years or less category, 44% (26) in the six to ten years category, 15%
(9) in the eleven to fifteen years category, 5% (3) in the sixteen to twenty years category, 14%
(8) in the twenty plus years category. Three administrators were interviewed to address case
study question 4 on how teachers were evaluated on the use of technology.
Case Study Question: What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization barriers that
might prevent teachers at Universal American School from the use of technology in classrooms?
In order to assess the barriers that prevent teachers at Universal American School from
using technology for instructional purposes in the classroom, a mixed-method study involving
surveys, interviews and classroom observations was conducted. The survey was designed to
assess the lack of knowledge, motivation and organizational factors for all the three main
technologies provided by the school to be used in the classrooms by teachers and students,
namely the interactive white boards (smartboards), the learning management system (portal) and
the mobile devices (laptops and tablets). The knowledge was further categorized by the four
types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive.
The survey included questions on knowledge about the technology proficiency standards
for teachers and students at Universal American School. The survey had questions to assess
knowledge of the available online software subscriptions provided by the school and to assess
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

56
the use of this software. The concluding questions of the survey assessed the choice of preferred
technology (among the three main technologies provided by the school) for instructional activity
by teachers and to identify whether there is preference for a laptop over a tablet or for a MAC
over a PC device. The following tables present the demographic and professional characteristics
of the survey and interview respondents.

Table 3
Survey Respondents (Teachers)
Gender

Subject
Male 15 English 10
Female 44 Science 7
Total 59 Social Science 7
Grade Level

Arabic/AFL 2
Grade 4 7 Language 2
Grade 5 3 ICT 3
Grade 6 4 Math 6
Grade 7 -12 45 Performing Arts 5
Total 59 P.E. 3
Years of Teaching Experience

Other 11
0 - 5 13 Elementary (Grade 4 - 6) 3
6 - 10 26 Total 59
11 - 15 9
16 - 20 3
20 Plus 8
Total 59

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

57
Table 4
Interview Respondents (Teachers)
Gender

Subject
Male 2 Performing Arts 2
Female 4 Elementary (Grade 4 - 6) 1
Total 6 Science 1
Grade Level

Other 2
Grade 4 2 Total 6
Grade 7 -12 3
Grade 9-12 1
Total 6
Years of Teaching Experience

0 - 5 2
6 - 10 3
11 - 15 1
16 - 20

20 Plus

Total 6

Table 5
Interview Respondents (Administrators)
Gender

Years of Teaching Experience
Male 2 0 - 5
Female 1 6 - 10
Total 3 11 - 15

16 - 20 2

20 Plus 1

Total 3

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

58
The survey was conducted using a five-point Likert scale. In response to the statements
on the survey, teachers indicated their responses as “very well”, “somewhat” or “not at all”. The
coding of the answer choices were represented with “very well” as 5, “somewhat” as 3, and “not
at all” as 1. Of the 59 responses, the survey results were analyzed to form two groups: one that
used technology frequently for instructional purposes in the classroom and one that did not use
technology as needed for instructional purposes in the classroom.
A total of six interviews were conducted with two teachers from the group that used
technology frequently and four teachers from the group that did not use technology as needed.
Two teachers from the group that used technology were not able to commit to the interview
schedules. Additionally, three classroom observations of teachers from the group that did not use
technology as needed were conducted to gather details on how many times technology was used
and the specific tasks that were done using technology. The observations lasted for thirty minutes
during the allocated fifty minute class period. Lastly, two administrators were interviewed to
identify how teachers were evaluated on the use of technology to answer case study question 4.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Findings from the Survey
In the survey, knowledge was assessed based on the learning taxonomy and grouping the
statements into the four categories of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive. Factual knowledge was confirmed by asking teachers questions regarding
knowledge of technology proficiency standards for teachers and students, basic operational
knowledge of smartboards, using learning management systems, and available online
subscriptions. Conceptual knowledge was assessed by statements on operations of the
smartboard software when needed, using the learning management system for posting lesson
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

59
plans, homework assignments and news announcements as needed. In order to identify the
procedural knowledge of teachers using the technology, statements on operational procedures of
specific tasks on smartboards and learning management system were included. Metacognitive
knowledge was assessed by asking teachers about the use of specific features of smartboards and
the learning management system and about when students were allowed to use mobile devices in
the classroom.
Table 6 summarizes the results corresponding to the statements of knowledge for all
technology. The highest means, 4.27 and 3.84, was for statements on factual knowledge
corresponding to learning management system, followed by 3.45 for smartboards, then by
3.43 for online subscriptions. The lowest means, 2.49 and 2.40, were for factual knowledge on
statements corresponding to technology proficiency standards for teachers and students,
respectively. For procedural knowledge, the highest mean, 3.92, was on the statement for
learning management system with lower means of 2.55 and 2.10 for statements on smartboards.
For metacognitive knowledge, the highest mean of 3.28 was on the statement regarding when to
use mobile devices in the classroom, followed by the mean of 3.11 for the statement of use of
specific function on the learning management system. Overall, the teachers scored higher on all
four types of knowledge for learning management system than for smartboards, meaning that
they knew more about the learning management system than they did about smartboards and
allowing students to use mobile devices in classrooms. The lowest factual scores corresponded to
the lack of knowledge of technology proficiency standards for students and teachers.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

60
Table 6
Knowledge Statements, Types of Knowledge, Technology Category, Mean and Standard
Deviation (Descending Order by Mean)
Statement Type of Knowledge Technology Category M SD
Familiar with posting class
announcements
Procedural Learning Management
System
4.27 1.03
Familiar with organizing
resource folders
Procedural Learning Management
System
3.92 1.30
Familiar with posting
homework assignments
Procedural Learning Management
System
3.84 1.30
Familiar with basic operational
functions
Procedural Smartboards 3.45 1.02
Awareness of online
subscriptions
Factual Online Subscriptions 3.43 1.09
Posting class announcements Procedural Learning Management
System
3.39 1.54
Manage the use of mobile
devices in classrooms
Metacognitive Mobile Devices 3.28 1.31
Use of discussion boards Metacognitive Learning Management
System
3.11 1.48
Use of online subscriptions in
classrooms
Metacognitive Online Subscriptions 3.07 1.30
Familiar with Smart Notebook
Software
Conceptual Smartboards 2.85 1.21
Using Smart Notebook software
to create interactive lesson
plans
Procedural Smartboards 2.55 1.26
Technology proficiency
standards for students
Factual Proficiency Standards 2.49 1.34
Technology proficiency
standards for teachers
Factual Proficiency Standards 2.40 1.17
Familiar with recording feature Procedural Smartboards 2.10 1.26

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

61
Findings from Interviews
The interview questions were separated by the various technology categories
(smartboards, learning management systems, mobile devices, online subscriptions and
technology proficiency standards for teachers and students). Teachers were asked to elaborate on
the features of smartboards they find useful for instructional purposes in the classrooms and all
the teachers interviewed were able to identify features that found useful. Four out of the six
referred to it as a “valuable tool” in the classroom.
Teachers were asked to describe the challenges they faced in using the smartboards, and
one of the teachers stated that “learning a new technology is always a challenge at the beginning”
and this theme was identified in the responses of the other teachers as well. Five of the six
teachers conveyed in their responses that they have the basic level of knowledge for the
operations of the smartboards and what they need is the knowledge to use the more advanced
features of the smartboards. In response to the question regarding which new features they had
learnt this year, all of the teachers responded that they had not learnt any new features by
themselves or through having them demonstrated to them. This suggests that they have not been
shown any new features that they could use in the classroom.
All the teachers responded with specific examples to narrate the usefulness of the
learning management system as a tool to enhance communication with students and parents
along with sharing and distributing learning resources. The responses suggest that the learning
management system is used in many different ways that benefit the teachers in their instructional
activity in the classroom.
When asked to describe the challenges, two teachers responded by saying that “the user
interface of the portal needed improvement to make it more user-friendly” and one teacher
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

62
mentioned “the need for more formal professional development at the beginning of the school
year”. Given that the learning management system is specific to Universal American School, it
needs dedicated training time allocated during the teacher orientation week at the start of the
school year.
When teachers were asked to describe the new features they learnt this year, four teachers
identified the new features and functionality that were added to the learning management system
this year. Overall, the teachers had a positive reference about they experience or had heard from
their peers and students about the new features of the portal.
All six teachers responded with no knowledge of the technology proficiency standards for
teachers and students at Universal American School. This seemed to be an area where all the
teachers displayed the same level of lack of knowledge or awareness of the technology
proficiency standards for teachers and students.

Figure 2. Visual representation of interview findings highlighting the difference between basic
and advanced level of usage of all three technologies

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Basic Knowledge Advanced Knowledge
Smartboards
Learning Management System
(Portal)
Technology Proficiency
Standards
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

63
Findings from Observations
The classroom observation protocol was structured in such a way as to track the number of
times the technology was used and categorize the various tasks performed with technology.
There were items on the classroom observation protocol to track the number of technical support
issues that resulted during the operation of the technology in the classroom and the number of
times the information technology department had to be called for assistance. During all the three
classroom observations done during the thirty minutes, the basic features of the smartboard were
used more than five times, and the advanced features were used three times. This suggested that
teachers had the knowledge to use the basic features of the smartboard.
The learning management system was used to access learning resources, and it was used
three times. Videos and other animated presentations downloaded from publicly available sites
such as YouTube were accessed from the shared network drives as part of the instructional
process. During one of the classroom observations, out of seventeen students, ten students (60%)
had laptops and iPads in front of them on their tables. The students frequently took notes and
used the Google search engine to access information as the instructor introduced terms and
concepts during the instruction. There were no technology support requests made during the
period of the observation.
Findings from Document Analysis
The document analysis was conducted prior to the interviews. The document analysis
consisted of reviewing the document used by administration along with the technology
integration coordinator to assess the level of technology integration in the classroom by teachers.
The sample document collected had five different categories to categorize the level of
technology integration by teachers. This document was adapted from Sandholtz, Ringstaff and
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

64
Dwyer’s (1997, 2008) five stages in technology integration. The assessment was performed two
times a year and individualized goals would be set for every teacher to progress from his/her
baseline assessment to the next level. Based on the interviews with administration, this
assessment was yet to be a formal part of the appraisal process, as it was considered to be in a
conceptual stage waiting to be approved by the leadership of the school.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Based on the survey results, the responses with the lowest means were those measuring
factual knowledge of the technology proficiency standards for teachers and students. It was
evident in the responses during the interviews that teachers did not have any knowledge of the
technology proficiency standards for teachers and students at Universal American School.
The survey and interview responses revealed that the teachers lacked procedural skills for the use
of the advanced features of the smartboards. The analysis of the responses of the surveys
indicating the lower measures for the mean and responses to the interview questions confirmed
the teachers’ lack of metacognitive skills for the use and management of mobile devices and the
advanced features of the learning management system as part of their instructional practice in the
classrooms.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Survey Results
Motivation was assessed in the survey by including statements about teachers’ value,
interest, self-efficacy and attributions to the use of technology for instructional purposes in the
classroom. Teachers’ value was assessed by statements about how important they feel that the
smartboards and the learning management system are for classroom instructional activity.
Interest was measured by statements seeking to understand how often they use the particular
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

65
technology features of smartboards and learning management system. Self-efficacy is an
indicator to identify whether teachers will persist if they face a challenge. Self-efficacy was
measured by statements to find out how often teachers took the time to learn new features of the
smartboards on their own and whether they would attend the professional development
workshops to learn more about the portal. Statements for assessing attribution included how
often teachers felt overwhelmed when it came to learning new features on smartboards and the
learning management system.
Table 7 summarizes the results for statements measuring motivation. In addition, the
table indicates what was measured: value, interest, self-efficacy, and attribution. Among the
statements that measured value, the statement with a mean 3.05 was highest for smartboards,
then followed by mobile devices, and by learning management system. For statements that
measured interest, the range of the mean was between 3.32 and 1.61 with statements that have
higher means for learning management system than smartboards. The statements measuring self-
efficacy had a higher mean of 2.59 for the learning management system when compared to
smartboards. The results for statements measuring attribution suggested that teachers had found
it more difficult to use smartboards than the learning management system which had a higher
mean of 3.09.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

66
Table 7
Motivation Statements, Types of Measure, Technology Category, Mean and Standard Deviation
(Descending Order by Mean)
Statement
Type of
Measure
Technology
Category M SD
How frequently do you post class announcements on the
portal
Interest Learning
Management
System
3.32 1.17
To what extent do you feel overwhelmed when it comes to
learning new features of the Smart Notebook software
Attribution Smartboard 3.09 1.32
To what extent do you find Smartboards to be an important
aspect of your classroom instructional activity
Value Smartboard 3.05 1.29
To what extent do you encourage the use of mobile
devices for classroom activities
Value Mobile
Devices
3.00 1.40
To what extent do you consider the portal to be an
important tool for classroom instruction
Value Learning
Management
System
2.97 1.38
How frequently do you upload lesson plans and other
learning resources to the portal
Interest Learning
Management
System
2.90 1.47
How often do you post homework assignments to the
portal
Interest Learning
Management
System
2.77 1.51
To what extent do you attend the professional development
workshops for the use of the Smartboards
Self-
Efficacy
Smartboards 2.76 1.18
To what extent do you attend the professional development
workshops for the use of the portal
Self-
Efficacy
Learning
Management
System
2.59 1.31
To what extent do you use the Smart Notebook software to
create interactive lesson plans
Interest Smartboards 2.34 1.26
How often do you take the time to learn new features of
the Smart Notebook software on your own
Self-
Efficacy
Smartboards 2.19 1.14
How frequently do you use the discussion board feature of
portal for online discussion with students
Interest Learning
Management
System
2.03 1.24
To what extent do you use the recording feature of
smartboards to record lesson plans for students to access
later
Interest Smartboards 1.61 1.12

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

67
Findings from Interviews
In response to the question of what new features of smartboards they learnt this year, all
of the teachers responded that they had not learnt any new features by themselves or through
having these demonstrated to them. This suggests that they have not had the intrinsic motivation
to learn any new features on their own.
When teachers were asked about the challenges they faced in the use of the learning
management system, two out of the four teachers from the group that did not use technology as
much cited technical difficulties as being the main reason for the lack of motivation to use the
learning management system. One of them was quoted saying “I just want something that
works”. Two of the teachers also mentioned that parents and students often complained about
having technical difficulties in accessing the learning management system, and this also
contributed to the lack of motivation.
All six teachers responded favorably when asked their views about allowing students to
bring their mobile devices to the classroom. However, two teachers felt that it may not be suited
for the elementary classes, and it would require more direct supervision by teachers for the use of
the mobile devices in the classroom for instructional activities.
Findings from Observations
During all the three classroom observations conducted during the thirty minutes, the basic
features of the smartboard were used more than five times and the advanced features were used
three times. This suggested that teachers were motivated to use the smartboard in the classroom
for instructional purposes. With regards to the usage of mobile devices in the classroom, the
observation suggested that, although students were using them as tools for their personal
learning, these were not considered for interactive exercises during instructional time in the
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

68
classroom. During one of the observations, the teacher experienced minor technology related
issues with the animation not being displayed properly; however, this did not deter the teacher
from using any technology for the rest of the observation period.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The survey results indicate that the teachers show a lack of interest in attending the
professional development workshops. The survey responses to statements regarding how
overwhelmed teachers felt when trying to learn new features of the smartboard had high mean
scores, indicating low motivation. The interview responses revealed that none of the teachers
interviewed had learned any new features and, when further questioned, their response was they
had not been shown any new features. This confirms very low self-efficacy and a lack of self-
motivation on the part of teachers.
The higher mean scores of the survey statements regarding the value of technology
confirm that the teachers value technology as an important aspect of their instructional practice.
Additionally, the responses to the interview question about their openness to encourage students
to bring mobile devices during classroom instruction indicated that teachers do value the impact
that can mobile devices can have in the classroom.
The survey statements that measured the means for the learning management system
combined with the interview responses indicated that the teachers did consider the learning
management system to be valuable and confirmed the interest in the use of the learning
management system as part of their instructional practice in the classroom. One of the
suggestions provided as part of the interview response was to have one-on-one sessions for
professional development rather than a large group in a classroom. The larger group professional
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

69
development sessions could be the reason that teachers are not interested in attending the
professional development workshops.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Survey Results
In order to assess the organizational gaps in the survey, the teachers responded to
statements about the extent to which they were provided with professional development
opportunities to learn about the technologies and technical support, expectations from leadership
about the intended use of the technologies, incentives to increase the usage of technologies and
asking for recommendation of a peer learning group to support the learning process. The
statement with highest mean, 3.40, was that regarding leadership expectations and goals being
set for the use of the learning management system followed by expectation set for mobile
devices and then by expectations for smartboards. The statements for assessing the level of IT
support had a higher mean, 3.16, for the learning management system than smartboards. The
statements assessing the professional development opportunities for both smartboards and
learning management system had the same mean, 2.79. Overall, based on the mean scores, the
data suggested that there was better organizational support for learning management system than
for smartboards. Table 8 summarizes the results for statements for culture and organization.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

70
Table 8
Statement Results for Culture and Organization Category, Mean and Standard Deviation
(Descending Order by Mean)
Statement Technology Category M SD
To what extent do you feel that leadership has set
goals for use of the portal
Learning Management
System
3.40 1.12
To what extent are you provided with IT support for
the use of the portal
Learning Management
System
3.16 1.07
To what extent do you recommend having a peer
learning group to help you in the use of Smartboards
in classrooms
Smartboards 3.02 1.27
To what extent do you recommend having a peer
learning group to help you in the use of portal in
classrooms
Learning Management
Systems
2.89 1.15
To what extent are you provided with professional
development for the use of the smartboards
Smartboards 2.79 1.10
To what extent are you provided with professional
development for the use of the portal
Learning Management
Systems
2.79 0.99
To what extent are you provided with IT support for
the use of smartboards in classrooms
Smartboards 2.60 1.21
To what extent do you feel that leadership has set
expectations for use of the mobile devices
Mobile Devices 2.49 1.31
To what extent do you feel that leadership has set
goals for use of the smartboards
Smartboards 2.47 1.17
To what extent do you feel you are provided with
incentives from the leadership team for the use of
the portal
Learning Management
System
2.42 1.25
To what extent do you feel you are provided with
incentives from the leadership team for the use of
the Smartboards
Smartboards 2.15 1.17

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

71
Findings from Interviews. When asked about ways that could help increase the use of
smartboards, two of the four teachers from the group that did not use technology as much
responded by saying that modeling the use of advanced features by experts or the heads of
department would be very useful. Overall, the responses from all the teachers suggest that more
professional development with a particular focus on the advanced features of the smartboards is
needed. Teachers shared the view that leadership needed to set clear expectations on the use of
smartboards’ advanced features. One of the teachers stated that having administrators performing
classroom observations strictly for the use of advanced features would be helpful.
When asked about the challenges faced in the use of the learning management system,
two teachers mentioned the need for on-going professional development of the learning
management system during the course of the school year. When asked about improving usage of
learning management system, one of the responses was having leadership set clear expectations
and guidelines in the use of the portal. The responses referring to the technical difficulties faced
by teachers in the use of the portal suggested that more technical support is required to increase
the use of the portal.
With regards to the viewpoint of allowing students to bring mobile devices to classrooms,
the general consensus among teacher responses was that having a secure network and physical
environment was an important prerequisite.
Findings from Observations
During the three classroom observations, there was only one occurrence of the teacher
experiencing difficulty with one of the animations that were downloaded as a learning resource
for demonstration of the concepts taught. However, that occurrence did not stop the teacher from
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

72
proceeding with the planned activities for the rest of the class. There were no requests for
technical support made during the three classroom observations.
Findings from Document Analysis
Based on the document sample submitted by the administration to illustrate assessment of
levels of technology integration in classrooms by teachers the leadership took steps to ensure that
technology integration in the classroom for instructional purposes was part of the strategic plan.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organization Causes
The lower mean scores on the survey results indicate that leadership did not set clear
expectations on the use of technology in general. Of the three main technologies, the lower
scores were evident for smartboards and mobile devices. Hence, there are no clear goals on what
is to be achieved through the use of these technologies.
The interview responses confirmed the need for focused professional development
opportunities to increase the use of the advanced features of smartboards and the learning
management system. There were many suggestions provided during the interviews regarding
how professional development opportunities can be improved to bring about the necessary
adoption of technology usage in the classrooms. Based on the survey responses, the lack of
technical support provided to teachers during the use of technology in the classrooms is
considered another key factor in the organizational setup for the lack of use of technology by
teachers in the classroom for instructional purposes.
Lack of incentives from leadership was also confirmed as one of the main reasons for the
lack of use of technology in the classrooms. The survey responses and the answers to the
interview questions showed that collaboration among peer support groups could increase
technology usage in the classrooms.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

73
Summary
The following section summarizes the gaps in knowledge, motivation and organizational
setup found by triangulation of data gathered through surveys, interviews, observations and
document analysis.
Knowledge and Skills
The survey and interviews confirm the teachers’ lack of factual knowledge of technology
proficiency standards for students and teachers. The survey and interview responses revealed that
the teachers lacked procedural skills for the use of the advanced features of the smartboards. The
analysis of the responses to the surveys indicating the lower measures for the mean and
responses to the interview questions confirmed the teachers’ lack of metacognitive skills
regarding the use and management of mobile devices and the advanced features of the learning
management system as part of their instructional practice in the classrooms.
Motivation
The survey results indicate that the teachers show a lack of interest in attending the
professional development workshops. The survey responses regarding how overwhelmed
teachers felt when trying to learn new features of the smartboard had high mean scores,
indicating low motivation. The interview responses revealed that none of the teachers
interviewed had learned any new features and, when further questioned, their response was they
had not been shown any new features. This confirms very low self-efficacy and a lack of self-
motivation on the part of teachers.
Organization
The survey responses combined with the answers to the interview questions confirmed
that the leadership did not set clear expectations on the use of technology in the classroom for
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

74
instructional practices. Lack of professional development opportunities were stated in the
interview responses and also indicated by the lower measures of the mean for the survey
responses. Suggestions for improvement to the professional development methodologies were
provided by teachers during the interviews.
Lack of incentives from leadership was also confirmed as one of the main reasons for
lack of use of technology in the classrooms. Based on the survey responses, the lack of technical
support provided to teachers in the use of technology in the classrooms was also validated as one
of the reasons. Finally, the survey responses and the answers to the interview questions showed
that the lack of peer support groups among teachers was another major factor in the
organizational setup for the lack of use of technology use for instructional purposes.

Table 9
Summarizes the List of Validated Causes from the List of Assumed Causes from Table 2 for
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Culture
Validated Causes
Knowledge Lack of factual knowledge of technology proficiency standards for teachers and
students
Lack of procedural skills in the use of technology in classrooms
Lack of metacognitive skills in the use of the appropriate technology in the classrooms
for the designated activity
Motivation Lack of interest in attending professional development workshops
Lack of self-efficacy in learning new technologies
Organization
Culture
Lack of clear communication by leadership on the expectation of the use of technology
Lack of adequate professional development
Lack of incentives for effectively using technology in classrooms
Lack of technical support during class periods
Lack of peer support groups

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

75
Case Study Question: What are the recommended solutions to close the knowledge,
motivation, and organization gaps that prevent teachers at Universal American School from
achieving their goal of being proficient in teaching 21
st
century skills using technology?
The recommended solutions to close the knowledge, motivation and organization gaps
are discussed in further detail in Chapter 5.
Case Study Question: What technologies are being used by teachers in the classrooms?
Based on the analysis of the survey and interview questions, the technologies that are
used by teachers, in order of preference, are smartboards, mobile devices and learning
management system. Based on the survey responses, the top three online resources that are
favored by teachers are Brainpop, EBSCO and RAZ Kids. Teachers prefer having both laptops
and iPads as mobile devices to be provided by the school. Sixty percent of the teachers surveyed
prefer an Apple Mac laptop over a PC laptop.
Case Study Question: How is the use of technology being evaluated in the classroom
setting?
Based on the interview responses of the administrators at Universal American School,
there are classroom observations conducted and a model to assess the stages of technology
integration in the classroom. The use of smartboards is assessed by reviewing the smart lesson
plans during classroom observations and the use of various features of the smartboard, ranging
from basic to advanced. Use of the learning management system is assessed by the reports it
generates that provide details on the number of learning resources, lesson plans, announcements,
and homework assignments posted by teachers.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

76
The feedback from parents is also taken into consideration as part of the usage
assessment. The mobile devices have been a recent introduction and, hence, evaluation
methodologies are under development.
In order to evaluate the use of technology at Universal American School, Kirkpatrick’s
(2006) four levels of evaluation were used to determine whether the solutions, in fact, lead to the
desired goal. This framework is presented in further detail in Chapter 5.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

77
CHAPTER 5
SOLUTIONS
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Process Model was used as a guide and
framework to help Universal American School reach its goal of increasing teachers’ use of
technology instructional activities in the classroom. Following the gap analysis model, Universal
American School identified the goal of narrowing the gap between the desired outcome and
current performance. Scanning interviews and observations helped identify potential causes of
the gaps and, along with previous research, literature guided the construction of a survey and a
set of questions to test potential causes of the gap. The gaps were identified through teacher
surveys, teacher interviews and classroom observations. This chapter identifies potential
solutions Universal American School may adopt in order to reach the goal of increasing teachers’
use of technology for instructional activities. This chapter offers suggestions to the school in the
process of implementation of the solutions. The following chapter discusses how to evaluate the
solutions in order to ensure these are, indeed, helping to close the identified gaps.
Validated Causes Selection and Rationale
All of the validated causes summarized in Table 9 of Chapter 4 mentioned under the
categories of knowledge, motivation and organization based on the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis model were selected to provide solutions for the causes. All of the validated causes are
interconnected and hence providing solutions for all of them in an integrated manner will have a
significant impact on achieving the goals of the organization.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

78
Solutions for Knowledge Causes
Increasing Factual Knowledge of Teachers About the Technology Proficiency Standards
for Teachers and Students
The first validated cause for the teacher knowledge and skills gap is lack of knowledge
regarding the technology proficiency standards for teachers and students adopted at Universal
American School. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) described factual knowledge as knowledge of
specific information and details. Teachers’ lack of awareness of the technology proficiency
standards represents a factual knowledge gap. Teachers cannot help students achieve technology
proficiency standards if they do not know what these are at Universal American School.
Increasing factual knowledge of teachers about the technology proficiency standards for
teachers and students can be achieved by dissemination of the information during orientation, by
creating awareness during the course of the school year at various teacher professional
development sessions, and sharing of the information through a centralized data repository.
Daugherty et al. (2008) asserted that changes in the curriculum can be advanced through
establishment of sound educational goals and outcomes. Once the teachers value the role of
technology in the advancement of student learning outcomes, teachers will adopt the technology
proficiency standards and engage in applying them in their instructional practices. Teachers can
be provided with the technology proficiency standards during the orientation day, and these can
also be made available for discussions during the school year’s scheduled professional
development days. This idea has been implemented in the Salem K-12 district (Cannistraci,
2011).
According to the study by Saavedra and Opfer (2012), using technology to enhance
collaboration activity among teachers can aid with increasing their factual knowledge about the
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

79
technology proficiency standards for students and teachers. The concept of deploying a digital
repository was emphasized in the study by Saavedra and Opfer (2012) to promote collaboration
among teachers and as way to model this behavior among students as well. As posited in the
study by Polly (2011), teacher participation in activities for development of technology-based
instructional resources deepens their understanding of the technology standards and, hence,
improves the factual knowledge acquisition process.
Increasing the Procedural Skills of Teachers on How to use Technology in Classrooms
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) defined procedural knowledge as the sequence of steps
and decisions that must be made in order to achieve the problem or learning objective. For this
type of learning gap, teachers need to engage in constructivist learning through activities that
support the construction of meaning (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Mayer (2011) provides
examples of constructivist/meaningful learning that engages the learner in activities that take
him/her through the step-by-step process. The activities build upon what the learner already
knows and allow the learner to build new knowledge from existing knowledge. It is only when
teachers reinforce their learning by applying the knowledge they gained in their daily
instructional activities that they will become proficient at the use of technology. Research
focused on supporting teachers’ learning related to technology integration found that teachers are
more likely to develop knowledge and skills associated with technology when learning addresses
technology, content and pedagogy (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
In the context of teacher learning, teachers would be expected to gain a deeper
understanding of content and pedagogies when they create or build artifacts related to their
learning. For example, teachers could create interactive lesson plans using the smartboard
software, interactive assessments using the tools available in the learning management system,
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

80
and learn to incorporate some of the advanced features of the smartboards to make the
instructional session more engaging for the students. This constructionist paradigm of increasing
the procedural skills of teachers in the use of technology has been advocated by Polly (2011).
Increasing the Metacognitive Skills of Teachers in the Appropriate Use of Technology in
the Classrooms for the Designated Activity
Research suggests that metacognitive knowledge plays a critical role in being successful
at learning. Schraw (1998) defined metacognition as knowledge of cognition and regulation of
cognition. Knowledge of cognition refers to the students’ knowing about their cognition in
general. He also suggested that metacognition is teachable. Schraw (1998) identified three types
of cognition: declarative, procedural, and conditional. Declarative knowledge is “knowing”
about things. This includes knowing about oneself as a learner and what factors influence one’s
performance. Students who know what factors influence their performance appear to have more
knowledge about different aspects of memory such as capacity limitation, rehearsal, and short
study sessions (Schraw, 1998). The second type of cognition is procedural knowledge, which
Schraw (1998) defines as knowing how to do a task. Students with high procedural knowledge
are able to perform a task automatically without having to think of each step. In addition,
students with high procedural knowledge are more likely to be familiar with many different
strategies, and they know how to sequence strategies. These students tend to integrate and
categorize new information. The third type is conditional knowledge: “knowing” the why and
when (Schraw, 1998). Conditional knowledge is being able to use declarative and procedural
knowledge together. Conditional knowledge is important because it helps students choose their
resources and use strategies more effectively. This type of knowledge also helps students adjust
to different types of situation demands of a specific learning task (Schraw, 1998).
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

81
The second aspect of metacognition, according to Schraw (1998), is regulation of
cognition, which refers to a set of activities that aid students in controlling their learning.
Research supports the idea that metacognitive regulation improves performance and helps
students use resources appropriately by using existing strategies (Schraw, 1998). Students
reported significant improvement in learning regulatory skills and understanding how to use
these skills when they are included as part of the classroom instruction (Schraw, 1998). The
essential aspects that make up regulating skills are planning, monitoring, and evaluation.
Planning is selecting the appropriate strategies and the resources that affect performance. This
includes making predictions before reading, strategy sequencing, and allocating time to learning.
Monitoring is the awareness of comprehension and task performance. This includes self-testing
to make sure one understands the intended task (Schraw, 1998). Evaluation is the act of
reviewing the end product and the efficacy on one’s learning. Usually, this is when students re-
evaluate their goals and conclusions. Once teachers have the factual, conceptual and procedural
knowledge, then it is important for them to know which technology to use for the designated
instructional activity. For example, when engaging in a classroom lecture, the interactive
whiteboard (smartboard) will be the preferred choice. When engaging in classroom activity
involving multiple students, having them use their mobile devices to access the relevant task
activity from the desired online resource or the learning management system would be the
preferred choices.
Solutions for Motivation Causes
Increasing Interest in Attending Professional Development Workshops
As per the expectancy value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), motivation is influenced
by a person’s expectancy for success and value for the task. Value is a strong predictor of active
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

82
choice and expectancy is a strong predictor of achievement once the choice has been made. In
order for teachers to feel motivated to attend the professional development workshops to learn
the use of technology, they need to value the use of technology during instructional activities and
have the belief that this use can increase student learning. The professional development
workshops have to be relevant for teachers to address their challenges and needs on a daily basis.
The teachers have to find value in attending the professional development workshops.
As per Bandura (1997), individuals can acquire much information about their capabilities
through knowledge of how others perform. Comparison with a peer is a cue for gauging one’s
self efficacy (Schunk, 1995). Based on this principle, observing peers succeed can raise teachers’
self-efficacy and motivate them to try the task because they are apt to believe that, if others can
do it, then they can as well. The application of this principle can increase the interest of teachers
in professional development workshops through modeling of effective use of technology.
Specific challenges and needs can be addressed during these workshops by experts within
Universal American School or from external organizations. Observing the demonstrations by
peers or external experts can have an impact on the beliefs of the teachers and, as a result, can
have an impact on the value placed by teachers on the professional development workshops,
leading to an increased interest in attending these.
Increasing Self-efficacy in Learning New Technologies
Self-efficacy refers to perceived capabilities for learning or performing actions at
designated levels (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1997) maintains that self-efficacy beliefs are
constructed from four principal sources of information: (1) an active mastery of experience that
serves as an indicator of capability; (2) vicarious experience that alters efficacy beliefs through
the transmission of competencies and comparison with the attainment of others; (3) verbal
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

83
persuasion and allied types of social influences that one possesses to master a given task; and (4)
physiological and emotional states that affect people’s judgment of their capabilities. Self-
efficacy can influence the choices people make and the courses of action they pursue. Self-
efficacy also helps determine how much effort people will expend on an activity, how long they
will persevere when confronting obstacles and how resilient they will be in the face of adverse
situations.
Fifteen to twenty minute demonstration sessions of the new features provided by
technology integration specialists to address the immediate needs of teachers will increase their
self-efficacy and will motivate them to take control of their own learning experience with
technology. The demonstration sessions may have to be repeated to allow teachers the time
needed for mastery of the new features, and this can have a positive impact on the self-efficacy
of teachers. The teachers will be motivated to learn, try new features on their own and foster a
culture of collaboration among their peers.
Solutions for Organization Causes
School Leadership Needs to Set Clear Expectations on the Use of Technology
The data gathered from the surveys and interviews of teachers revealed that teachers did
not use technology for instructional activities, even though they had the knowledge and had
strong beliefs about the positive impact of using technology for student learning. This is due to
the school leadership’s not explicitly outlining clear goals and outcomes for what needs to be
achieved with the use of technology. Goal setting is one of the central concepts of socio
cognitive theory (SCT), that provides the view that people not only learn, but use forethought to
identify the desired outcomes and plan accordingly to achieve those outcomes. The solution of
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

84
establishing clear goals and outcomes regarding what needs to be achieved using technology is
based on this concept of SCT.
Getting the school leadership to set clear goals and expectations will create a level of
accountability which will motivate teachers to meet them. The approach will help with the
integration of solution from both organizational and motivational aspects. The leadership can
model the desired behavior by attending the technology workshops and by using technology in
their interactions with teachers, which will help establish credibility with teachers. The
leadership needs to hold teachers accountable, with clear consequences, if they do not meet the
established goals and objectives. To take the solution implementation to the next level, the
school leadership can also be involved in modeling the use of technology in their staff meetings
and other engagements with school community.
Per the research by Greaves (2012), leadership commitment is a key component to
ensuring that teachers receive the consistent message and importance of the goal. It is difficult to
have a definition for achieving success in any technology integration initiative in the absence of
explicitly stated objectives and outcomes (Milton 2003). Clearly defined goals and milestones
will provide a roadmap for teachers to ensure their activities are aligned towards achieving the
goals.
Establishing Peer Support Groups
The social cognitive theory (SCT) by Bandura (1977) emphasizes that learning occurs in
a social context, and is gained through observation. One of the core concepts of SCT is
observational learning/modeling which is based on the premise that people learn through
observation or modeling. Live demonstrations of a behavior or skills by a peer member can
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

85
facilitate the learning process. The solution of providing professional development by other
exemplary peer teachers or technology integration specialists is based on this aspect of SCT.
According to Vygotsky’s (1997) sociocultural theory, there is a strong connection
between the learning processes of an individual and that his/her social interactions with others.
From this perspective, as learners participate in a broad range of joint activities and internalize
the effects of working together, they acquire new strategies and knowledge of the world and
culture. Sociocultural theory is applied in the recommendation of creating a professional learning
community that allows for teachers to share and learn from each other’s experiences with using
technology in the classrooms.
Vygotsky (1978) also introduced the concept of the zone of proximal development (ZPD)
in which the learning process is associated with the development process. In other words,
development occurs when learners learn concepts and principles that can be applied to new tasks
and problems. This concept is also applied as part of the solution whereby teachers are given
tasks during the professional development sessions to apply new learning as form a practice, and
they are assessed on their learning.
Increasing the Opportunities for Professional Development
According to Section 9101 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2002), high quality
professional development activities enable teachers to become highly qualified by improving and
increasing their knowledge of the academic subjects they teach. These activities are an integral
part of broad school-wide and district-wide plans to improve teachers’ classroom management
skills and are aligned with and directly related to state academic content. They are high-quality,
sustained, intensive, and classroom-focused for a positive and lasting impact upon classroom
instruction and teacher performance. The legislation supports a variety of professional
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

86
development programs, including those that provide training for teachers and principals in the
use of technology, so that its applications are effectively used in the classroom to (1) improve
teaching and learning in the curricula and core academic subjects in which the teachers teach;
(2) provide instruction in methods of teaching children with special needs; (3) include instruction
in the use of data and assessments to inform and instruct classroom practice; and (4) provide
follow-up training to teachers who have participated in activities that are designed to ensure that
the knowledge and skills learned by the teachers are implemented in the classroom.
Educational technology is linked to student achievement and school improvement, yet
many teachers do not believe that they are prepared to use technology as part of their classroom
instructional practice (Kurt & Ciftci, 2012). In response, the Clinton Administration started the
Technology Innovation Challenge Grant program to provide research-based professional
development activities in the area of technology to K-12 teachers. Four different types of
professional development were recommended, including a coaching/mentoring model, face-to-
face training, train-the-trainer model, and web-based training (Poplin, 2003). The coaching and
mentoring method trains a small cadre of teachers to conduct demonstration technology lessons
and provide other types of support for a larger group of classroom teachers. A major benefit of
this model is the relationships built among the coaches or mentors and the teachers who use the
technology. In addition, this approach can to continue year-to-year since the coaches and
teachers work collegially at the same location. The results from a study of this approach showed
that, after the third year of the project, two-thirds of the teachers had become technology
integrators.
Another proven method of professional development is that of face-to-face training. This
training removes teachers from their own classrooms and places them into technology-rich
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

87
learning environments in which they are encouraged to work cooperatively with their peers. In
this type of training, the most beneficial approach is one in which the teachers create integrated,
thematic units with embedded technology. Teachers are then asked to model technology
integration for each other and to use team teaching. This type of face-to-face training continues
to be effective when teachers have opportunities for technology practice, collaboration, and unit
development. Many school districts use the train-the-trainer approach to technology staff
development. In this system, it is easy to reach a large number of teachers efficiently.
Per the study by Chew (2013), teachers need ongoing professional development that
encourages them to reflect on their own practices while engaging in more meaningful
opportunities to observe what practices are effective in other classrooms creating a specific
context in which to better understand the relationship the identified effective practices have to
their own.
Introducing Incentives for the Use of Technology
Student engagement is critical to student motivation during the learning process.
Increasing student engagement in the classroom is considered to be a significant incentive for the
teachers. The more students are motivated to learn, the more likely it is that they will be
successful in their efforts. Numerous factors influence student motivation, including parental
involvement, teacher motivation and skills, and effective use of technology. Technology can be
utilized to create a motivating classroom environment where students are engaged in learning.
An environment where technology is used in innovative ways leads to improved learning and
teaching (Wishart & Blease, 1999). Finally, technology provides opportunities for teachers to
meet the needs of students with various learning styles through the use of multiple media (Bryant
& Hunton, 2000).
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

88
Providing teachers with an opportunity to demonstrate their technology proficiency
amongst their peers is an incentive for teachers to further their career aspirations into
administrative roles. Because technology opens new avenues for instruction, and because its use
is often linked to professionalism, some schools have intended for technology implementation to
improve teacher morale. Hadley and Sheingold (1993) conducted a survey of 608 teachers in 576
schools throughout the country that were known for their efforts at integrating computer
technology into teaching. They found that, when teachers were asked to identify incentives for
integrating computers in their teaching, two trends emerged: student accomplishment, rather than
their own external rewards, was most motivating for the teachers, followed by students’ being
able to use computers as a tool for their own purposes. As they state, ‘‘in the daily professional
life of these teachers, it is the psychic payoff of student’s learning and engagement that appears
to matter most’’ (p. 281). Teachers also cited increased self-esteem, through recognition,
advancement, development, and financial reward, as a motivating factor. When asked to identify
barriers, three factors considered in the past persisted as barriers: too few computers and
peripheral equipment, not enough time to prepare computer-based lessons, and challenges with
scheduling enough computer time for different teachers’ classes.
Increasing the Level of Technical Support during Class Periods
According to research by Hew and Brush (2007), employing adequate levels of staff to
provide technical support on the use of technology during classroom instruction is a requirement
for the success of a technology integration initiative. As the technology environment becomes
more sophisticated with the evolution of technology, recruiting specialized talent is not the
optimal use of resources; rather, a better approach is collaboration among teachers, technology
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

89
coaches and technology support personnel to find an optimal balance for providing the adequate
level of technology support for classroom instructional practice (Polly, 2011).
According to the research study by Voyiatzaki and Avouris (2012), technical support can
be provided remotely during classroom instruction, and staff does not have to be available in the
classroom. In technology enabled classrooms, wherein the students use complex communication
and collaboration tools, the teachers have to be empowered in order to meet the new challenges
of such a setting and integrate these new tools to their practice. They have to become accustomed
to monitoring the progress of a lesson through a computer screen (at the teacher workstation)
instead of by moving from student to student.
Bryzcki and Dudt (2005) posit that the technical support staff recruited for providing
technology support not only needs to be technically competent but also be supportive and
provide an encouraging attitude towards the teachers. This type of a supportive attitude promotes
self-confidence, enriches the learning experience for the teachers and has a positive impact on
the students.
Implementation Plan
The solutions for all gaps found are interrelated. The solutions offered for closing the gap
of knowledge will also aid in closing the gap of motivation and of fostering a supportive
organizational culture. The solutions proposed will help teachers overcome the barriers to using
technology for instructional purposes in the classroom. Table 10 summarizes the causes,
solutions and implementation of the solutions to aid in closing the gap for knowledge/skill,
motivation and culture/context. Table 11 outlines the organizations goals, which are broken
down by short-term goals that will aid in reaching the main goal of the organization. Table 12
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

90
summarizes the performance goal, time frame of the implementation and how the performance
goals will be measured.
Solution Integration
Table 10
Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Implementation of the Solutions

Knowledge & Skills Motivation
Culture/Context/
Capital/Policy
Causes Lack of factual
knowledge of technology
proficiency standards for
teachers and students
Lack of procedural skills
in the use of technology
in classrooms
Lack of metacognitive
skills in the use of the
appropriate technology in
the classrooms for the
designated activity
Lack of interest in
attending
professional
development
workshops
Lack of self-efficacy
in learning new
technologies
Lack of clear communication
by leadership on the
expectation of the use of
technology
Lack of adequate
professional development
Lack of incentives for
effectively using technology
in classrooms
Lack of technical support
during class periods
Lack of peer support groups
Solutions Increasing factual
knowledge of teachers
about the technology
proficiency standards for
teachers and students
Increasing the procedural
skills of teachers on how
to use technology in
classrooms
Increasing the
metacognitive skills of
teachers in the
appropriate use of
technology in the
classrooms for the
designated activity
Increasing interest in
attending
professional
development
workshops
Increasing self-
efficacy in learning
in new technologies
School leadership needs to
set clear expectations on the
use of technology
Establishing peer support
groups
Increasing the Opportunities
for Professional
Development
Introducing incentives for the
use of technology
Increasing the level of
technical support during
class periods

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

91
Table 10, continued

Knowledge & Skills Motivation
Culture/Context/
Capital/Policy
Implementation Ensure that all
teachers get a copy
of the published
technology
proficiency standards
for students and
teachers
Ongoing
professional
development
workshops on the
use of technology for
instructional
activities in the
classroom
Professional
development to
include activities for
helping teachers to
understand when to
use a particular kind
of technology to
enhance instructional
practice
Demonstrate the
advantages of using
technology for
instructional practice
by peers to enhance
the interest in
attending
professional
development
workshops
By having focused
demonstration
sessions that
highlight specific
features of the
technology that can
utilized immediately
in the classroom will
increase the
confidence of
teachers to try other
new features on their
own
Ensure that school leadership
provides a clear set of
expectations on the use of
technology in the classroom
by setting examples
Allow teachers to form
groups that can collaborate
and share ideas on the use of
technology, by year level or
by department
Plan a professional
development schedule for the
year which lists topics and
activities that will be covered
during each session
Provide incentives such as
time for learning and
planning and opportunities
for attending external
professional development
sessions
Provide support mechanisms
to promote the use of
technology in the classrooms

Stakeholder Cascading and Performance Goals
An organization’s goal is achievable by scaffolding steps. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), “effective performance goals cascade or follow from organizational goals” (p. 22). Table
8 summarizes hierarchical goals that begin with the overall organizational goal; subsequent goals
are identified to scaffold the achievement of the organizational goal.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

92
Table 11
Summary of Organization ’s Main Goal, Short Term Goals, Cascading Goals, and Performance
Goals
Organizational Goal: Universal American School’s organizational goal is that 100% of teachers will
be proficient in the use of technology during instructional activities in the classroom by September
2016
Stakeholder 1 Goal: Teachers
will focus on using technology
for instructional activities in
the classroom (Academic Year
2014-2015)
Stakeholder 2 Goal: School
Administration will provide the
organizational support for
teachers to use technology in
the classroom for instructional
practices (Academic Year
2014-2015)
Stakeholder 3 Goal: Teachers will
help students with increasing their
technology proficiency upon
graduation (Academic Year 2015-
2016)
Stakeholder 1 Cascading
Goal 1: Teachers will have a
clear understanding of the
technology proficiency
standards for students and
teachers (May 2014)
Stakeholder 1 Cascading
Goal 2: School Administration
will set clear expectations for
teachers on the use of
technology for instructional
purposes in the classroom
(September 2014)
Stakeholder 1 Cascading Goal 3:
Teachers will attend the
professional development activities
for instructional purposes in the
classroom for engaging students
more effectively (Ongoing 2014)
Stakeholder 1 Performance
Goal: Teachers will review
and be able to comprehend
and apply the technology
proficiency standards
(September 2014)
Stakeholder 1 Performance
Goal: Teachers will accept the
vision and expectations set by
school leadership for the use of
technology for instructional
purposes in the classroom
(September 2014)
Stakeholder 1 Performance Goal:
Teachers will be able to use and
apply the appropriate technology
for specific learning activities in the
classroom (May 2015)
Stakeholder 1 Performance
Goal: Teachers will attempt to
see the value of using
technology for instructional
purposes in the classroom for
engaging students more
effectively (Ongoing 2014)
Stakeholder 1 Performance
Goal: School administration
will provide incentives to
teachers for the use of
technology in classrooms
(Ongoing 2014, & 2015)
Stakeholder 1 Performance Goal:
Teachers will be able to share ideas
and learn from their peers (January
2015)
Stakeholder 1 Performance
Goal: Teachers will garner the
confidence to learn new
features of the existing
technologies on their own
(May 2015)
Stakeholder 1 Performance
Goal: School Administration
will provide the adequate level
of technical support for
teachers during class periods
(September 2014)
Stakeholder 1 Performance Goal:
Teachers will be able to monitor
their progress and evaluate if
changes are needed in order to
reach their goals by the end of
2014.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

93
Table 12
Summary of Performance Goals, Timeline and Measurement of Performance Goals
Stakeholder Performance Goal Goal Measure
Teachers will review and be able to comprehend and apply the
technology proficiency standards
Implement by: September 2014
Evaluate Progress by: December 2014
By asking teachers to list the
technology proficiency standards
for teachers and students.
Teachers will attempt to see the value of using technology for
instructional purposes in the classroom for engaging students
more effectively
Implement by: Ongoing 2014
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Academic Year 2014-2015
By classroom observations and
also the number of professional
development workshops attended
Teachers will garner the confidence to learn new features of the
existing technologies on their own
Implement by: May 2015
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Academic Year 2014-2015
Teachers will demonstrate the new
features they have learned and
applied to the school
administration during their
appraisals
Teachers will accept the vision and expectations set by school
leadership for the use of technology for instructional purposes in
the classroom
Implement by: September 2014
Evaluate Progress by: December 2014
Teachers will be able to explain
the vision and expectations to the
school administration
School administration will provide incentives to teachers for the
use of technology in classrooms
Implement by: Ongoing 2014
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Academic Year 2014-2015 &
2015-2016
School administration will list all
the available incentives they have
devised for teachers for the use of
technology for instructional
purposes in the classroom
School Administration will provide the adequate level of
technical support for teachers during class periods
Implement by: September 2014
Evaluate Progress by: December 2014
School administration will recruit
qualified technology support staff
or deploy the appropriate software
that can be used to support
teachers during class periods
Teachers will be able to share ideas and learn from their peers
Implement by: January 2015
Evaluate Progress by: Ending of Academic Year 2014-2015
Teachers will be able to list the
ideas that were developed during
their engagement with their peer
support groups

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

94
Summary
Research literature about the impact of teacher knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organization gap solutions were the basis of the solutions and implementation proposed in this
chapter. The literature focused on empirically-based educational strategies that may assist
Universal American School in reaching its organizational goal of 100% of the teachers being
proficient in the use of technology for instructional purposes in the classroom. The purpose of
this literature was to present solutions of effective, sound educational practices to address the
knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational gaps as per the Gap Analysis Model by
Clark and Estes (2008). In order to monitor the progress and effectiveness of the proposed
solutions and implementation, a system of evaluation is presented in Chapter 6.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

95
CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate the reasons for teachers’ not using
technology for instructional practices during class periods to achieve the desired level of
technology proficiency standards at Universal American School (UAS). The organizational
problem of Universal American School is the lack of utilization of technology for instructional
activities in the classroom and is best described by the discrepancy model based on the Gap
Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2008). The primary stakeholders for this study were the teachers
at Universal American School. In order to achieve the organizational goal of enhancing students’
proficiency in 21
st
century problem solving, the teachers will have to increase use of technology
in daily instructional activities in the classrooms and integrate the use of technology in their key
assessments. The teachers will need to be provided with adequate level of knowledge, motivation
and organizational support to ensure that they can do so.
The analysis focused on causes for this problem due to gaps in the areas of knowledge
and skill, motivation, and organizational issues. Currently, only 30% of teachers are assessed as
being technology proficient. The organizational goal is that 100% of teachers will be proficient
in the use of technology during instructional activities in the classroom. The gap that currently
exists is 70%.
Results
The following section summarizes the gaps in knowledge, motivation and organizational
setup found by triangulation of data gathered by surveys, interviews, observations and document
analysis.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

96
Knowledge and Skills
The results of the survey and interviews indicated the teachers’ lack of factual knowledge
of technology proficiency standards for students and teachers. The survey and interview
responses revealed that the teachers lacked procedural skills for the use of the advanced features
of the smartboards. The analysis of the survey responses confirmed the teachers’ lack of
metacognitive skills for the use and management of mobile devices and the advanced features of
the learning management system as part of their instructional practice.
Motivation
The survey results indicate that the teachers show a lack of interest in attending the
professional development workshops. The survey responses to the statement regarding how
overwhelmed teachers felt when trying to learn new features of the smartboard had high mean
scores indicating low motivation. The interview responses revealed that none of the teachers
interviewed had learned any new features and, when further questioned, their response was they
had not been shown any new features. This confirms very low self-efficacy and a lack of self-
motivation on the part of teachers.
Organization
The survey responses combined with the answers to the interview questions confirmed
that the leadership did not set clear expectations on the use of technology in the classroom for
instructional practices. Lack of professional development opportunities were stated in the
interview responses and also indicated by the lower measures of the mean for the survey
responses. Suggestions for improvement to the professional development methodologies were
provided by teachers during the interviews.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

97
Lack of incentives from leadership was also confirmed as one of the main reasons for
lack of use of technology in the classrooms. Based on the survey responses, the lack of technical
support provided to teachers during the use of technology in the classrooms was also validated as
one of the reasons. Finally, the survey responses and the answers to the interview questions by
teachers showed that the lack of peer support groups among teachers was another major factor in
the organizational setup for the lack of use of technology in the classrooms.
Recommendation Implication
The implementation of the solutions will help close the gap of knowledge, motivation and
organization. The first step, as part of the solution implementation, will be for the leadership of
Universal American School to set expectations for teachers with regards to the use of technology
in the classroom. This will involve ensuring that teachers receive the required documentation on
the technology proficiency standards for students and teachers during the orientation week prior
to the start of the school year. The next step is to focus on the professional development activities
for teachers during the next academic year (2014-2015) to identify and use the appropriate
school-provided technology (smartboard, portal and mobile devices) for the designated
classroom activities. This step of the implementation will take time, as the teachers have to value
the use of technology and then focus on learning to use it correctly to have the desired impact on
students during the classroom activities.
To enhance the outcomes of the professional development activities for teachers, the
school leadership will need to provide the necessary support as outlined in Chapter 5: help
teachers establish peer support groups, provide incentives for the exemplary use of technology,
and provide technical support during classroom time. These additional steps will have an impact
on the school budget and require additional approval from the school management board.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

98
In order to increase the use of technology in the classrooms, one of the proposed
interventions will be to provide the appropriate level of professional development to the teachers,
and to have the effectiveness of this intervention through an evaluation program. The model that
will be used to design the evaluation will be the Kirkpatrick’s (1998) Four Level Evaluation
model (reaction, impact of the program, transfer, bottom line). Prior to outlining the agenda and
curricula of the professional development plan, the teachers will be assessed on their current
level of classroom technology skills with a focus on the following classroom technologies:
smartboards, portal and mobile devices.
Evaluation
Based on this initial assessment, the professional development sessions will be planned
for three groups: basic, intermediate and advanced. The goal of attending these professional
development sessions will be to advance the teachers’ current level of assessment to the next
level.
Level 1: Reaction
At the reaction level, the experience of teachers attending the professional development
session will be assessed. A survey will be answered in anonymity prior to attendance at the
professional development session to assess how much they value the use of technology in
classrooms, their current knowledge in the use of the specified classroom technology and their
level of confidence in using the technology. After the professional development session is
completed, a post-session survey will be conducted to gather information on whether there has
been any change in how they value the use of technology, how they feel about their level of
knowledge in the use of technology and their level of confidence in using the technology. The
survey will include open-ended questions to solicit feedback on what can be changed to enhance
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

99
the value of the program with questions such as “What do you find most useful about the
program?” and “What would like to change about the program to make it more useful for you?”
The researcher’s expectation is to see positive feedback gathered from the survey to
indicate that the implementation of the professional development plan was successful at the
reaction level. The design of the evaluation for the reaction level should be done as one-group
pre-test, post-test design. As described above, the design will include a pre-test measure followed
by a treatment and a post-test for the group in consideration. The reliability of the survey will be
established based on the analysis of responses to ensure that there is consistency in the responses
over a period of time. The validity of the measure will be based on establishing that the
responses of the attendees on the surveys are correlated to what they are able to demonstrate
during the professional development session and in a real-time classroom setting.
Level 2: Learning
At the learning level, demonstration of the learning that teachers acquired during the
professional development session is an effective measure of evaluation of the professional
development program (Kirkpatrick, 1998). If the solutions offered are effective, the observation
of teachers in the classrooms will indicate the professional development program has an impact
on their learning in a positive way. The key aspect of this level is to provide as many
opportunities for teachers to practice the activity as much as possible. The more practice teachers
can get during the professional development program, the better they will be able to transfer the
skills and knowledge back into the classroom sessions. Modeling by experts in the use of
technology for the teachers attending will be an important component of the professional
development program.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

100
During the course of the professional development session, teachers can be assessed in
two ways: one with written tests to assess factual knowledge and a practical demonstration of the
use of technology from a procedural standpoint. The practical demonstration component can be
evaluated with a set of criteria (evaluation checklist) that will be developed as per the technology
proficiency standards of the school along with consultation with the technology integration
coordinators. The steps for basic, intermediate and advanced levels of use will be identified on
the check list for all the classroom technologies for which the professional development plan has
been developed.
Level 3: Transfer
At the transfer level, teachers are assessed to see whether they are able to use technology
in classrooms based on the professional development sessions they received. This can be
assessed by observing the teachers in the classrooms with the same evaluation checklist that was
used in the professional development session. The evaluation will be conducted after three
months from the professional development program. The results gathered from the evaluation
would help determine whether the teachers are using the technology in the classrooms as needed
and this would indicate that the professional development program has been successful.
The design of the evaluation will be static group comparison, also called post-test only
with nonequivalent groups. The teachers who attended the professional development session and
teachers who did not attend the professional development session will be observed and assessed
using the evaluation checklist. If there is a significant increase in behavior of teachers who
attended the professional development session on the use of technology in the classroom then,
that will indicate that the professional development program is a successful intervention.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

101
Level 4: Impact
This level investigates whether there is progress toward the organization’s goal. At the
impact level, the key measure will be student engagement levels in the classroom, which will be
assessed through classroom observations. If there are enhanced levels of student engagement in
the classrooms of teachers who attended the professional development sessions as compared to
teachers who did not, then it is a positive indicator that professional development contributed to
the increased levels of student engagement. Over a five-year time period, the student engagement
levels should have a positive correlation with student achievement and test scores. The
researcher expects the student discipline issues to decrease, and this can be measured through
students’ behavior records.
The assessments can be conducted in many classes where teachers attended the
professional development programs. Validating that the performance changes have an impact at
the results level solely due to the professional development program can be done as per the
staged innovation design by Clark and Snow (1975). The staged innovation design is way of
measuring the impact of the intervention by implementing it in different departments or locations
of the same organization at different times. The result will provide information about the exact
contribution of the performance improvement in terms of closing the gap and influencing the
results level while having an impact on the organizational goals. It is the only comprehensive
design for measuring all fours levels of evaluation if organizations want to ensure that the
program in question was the cause of the measured changes in the bottom line.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The gap analysis framework aids in helping the institution to reach its goal step-by-step.
This framework takes into consideration that each organization is distinct and the cause of the
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

102
problem is unique. The framework helps quantify the gap that needs to be closed, which provides
clear goals and measurable outcomes. The strength of the gap analysis approach is that the entire
process is personalized to the organization’s needs. The solutions’ recommendations are based
on data collected within the organization to identify site-specific needs. Additionally, solutions
and implementation recommendations are cascaded into tiered goals, thus scaffolding mini-
activities that will lead to the organizational goal’s eventual achievement. Another strength of the
gap analysis approach is that the performance goals set deadlines for evaluating the effectiveness
of the solutions. These formative checkpoints are helpful because it allows the organization to
make adjustments in a timely manner.
The challenge with regard to the gap analysis approach is finding the time to thoughtfully
analyze the gaps of the organization and time to analyze research in order to make appropriate
solutions and recommendations. One of drawbacks of the framework is the time commitment. In
a school environment, there is pressure from the decision-makers to achieve positive results in
very reduced timeframes when, in fact, the solutions need more time to be implemented and for
the targeted results to be realized. The gap analysis requires time and commitment from the
organization. In addition, solutions to close a gap can cause other gaps to occur (Clark & Estes,
2008). If goals of the organization are not met, the process needs to be repeated until the right
solution closes the gap.
Kirkpatrick’s (1998) four-level framework is a tool that will help the school evaluate the
effectiveness of the solutions. Many times, organizations skip the evaluations or use basic level
one evaluation without investigating whether the solutions are helping to close the gap. The
framework is detailed, which helps implement the evaluations process.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

103
Limitations
The survey for teachers was distributed during the mid-term assessments of the first
quarter, which was a busy time for the teachers to respond, and, hence, the survey participation
rate was affected. Self-reported nature of surveys could have limitations when the teachers were
made aware of the “who and why” of the study. The survey and interview responses might not be
an accurate representation of their true feelings due to the fact that the study was conducted by
the person working in a leadership capacity at the school.
The researcher of the project works at the school, and this could bring bias to the project.
It could be that the author interprets the data to confirm or disconfirm personal beliefs as to the
cause of the gap. Patton (1990) suggests that the researcher can influence the data by his/her own
opinions and judgments. It is possible that the author was not objective and confirmation bias
played a role.
The technology usage in the classroom between elementary and secondary teachers was
very different due to the age range of the students that were present at these grade levels and
hence this wide variability in the level of technology usage in the classrooms could have
impacted the survey and interview responses. This project was a case study on a single school.
The recommendations are only applicable to Universal American School. The gaps identified
and the solutions recommended cannot be functional for a different school setting because these
are particular to Universal American School.
Future Research
Literature on the barriers to the use of technology in a K-12 environment was easily
accessible. The available literature on the use and adoption of technology in a K-12 classroom
environment shows that there has been an evolution of the barriers moving from accessibility of
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

104
technology and technology maturity to that of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes in adopting
technology. Research literature on the measures of the use of technology being linked to tangible
student achievement scores and non-tangible 21
st
century skills of problem solving and critical
thinking were hard to find, and this is an area that can be recommended for future research.
Another consideration for future research is based on action-oriented research with mixed-
methods studies that examine teachers in actual practice through observations and do not rely on
self-reported data.
Given the aforementioned points, it is recommended that ESOL Education, the parent
organization of Universal American School, consider a broader research study across all its
schools to create the instructional technology roadmap to close the gaps in knowledge,
motivation and organization to achieve the learning outcomes for the students and the teaching
expectations for teachers. One of the areas to consider for future research is the varying levels of
technology usage between elementary and secondary school teachers, since they cater to
different ages of students, the technology needs in the classroom to engage these different age
ranges could be significantly different.
Conclusion
As per the Gap Analysis Framework Model (Clark & Estes, 2008) that was utilized in
identifying the gaps in knowledge, motivation and organization, there were several findings that
contributed to the lack of use of technology by teachers in the classroom for instructional
practice. One of the key findings was that teachers were not made aware of the technology
proficiency standards for students and teachers at Universal American School. Another major
finding was that the school leadership did not set clear expectations regarding what needs to be
achieved with the use of technology in the classroom.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

105
Setting clear expectations regarding what needs to be achieved with the use of
technology, as per the adopted technology proficiency standards for students and teachers, and
professional development were the key factors in the proposed solution to reduce the identified
gaps. An evaluation model for the proposed solution based on Kirkpatrick’s (1998) four-level
framework is recommended for monitoring the implementation of the proposed solution. A two-
year timeframe has been recommended for the implementation of the solution.
The experience gained in conducting this study using the Gap Analysis Framework can
be applied to determine the gaps for the other problems within the organization and could be
adopted as a standard approach to establishing a culture of a data-driven practice in the
organization. The methods of data collection surveys, interviews and observations provide the
opportunity to engage with the stakeholders from a scientific research-oriented standpoint, which
enhances the credibility of the proposed solutions and potentially increases their rate of adoption.
Overall, the time and effort dedicated to this study has been a very valuable experience for this
researcher to gain insight into the research-oriented approach of problem solving.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

106
REFERENCES
AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology. (2008). Handbook of technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. New York: Routledge.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
American Association of Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global
century. Washington, DC: AACU.
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2011). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and
communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an
expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 21(4), 292-302.
Azevedo, R. (2005). Computer environments as metacognitive tools for enhancing learning.
Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 193–197.
Bain, A., & Ross, K. (1999). School reengineering and SAT-1 performance: A case study.
International Journal of Education Reform, 9(2), 148–153.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: WH Freeman and
Company.
Barak, M. (2004). Issues involved in attempting to develop independent learning in pupils
working on technological projects. Research in Science and Technological Education,
22(2), 171–183.
Barak, M. (2010). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(4), 381-401.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

107
Bodur, H. O., Brinberg, D., & Coupey, E. (2000). Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative models
of the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 17–28.
Bryant, S. M. and Hunton, J. E. (2000). The use of technology in the delivery of instruction:
implications for accounting educators and education researchers. Issues in Accounting
Education, 15(1), 129-163.
Brzycki, D., & Dudt, K. (2005). Overcoming barriers to technology use in teacher preparation
programs. Journal of Technology and teacher education, 13(4), 619-641.
Buzan, T. (1991). Use both sides of your brain (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Cannistraci, L. (2011). The value of instructional technology in a K-12 district. Distance
Learning, 8(1), 9
CEO Forum on Education and Technology (2001). The CEO Forum school technology and
readiness report: Key building blocks for student achievement in the 21st century.
Retrieved May 10, 2006 from http://www.ceoforum.org/downloads/report4.pdf.
Cifuentes, L., Maxwell, G., & Bulu, S. (2011). Technology integration through professional
learning community. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 59-82.
Chen, Y. L. (2008). Modeling the determinants of Internet use. Computer & Education, 51(2),
545-558.
Chew, C. (2013). Instructional rounds as professional development for teachers.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC. Information Age Publishing.
Clark, R. E., & Snow, R. E. (1975). Alternative designs for instructional technology research. AV
Communication Review, 23(4), 373-394
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

108
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Early views on motivation and creativity. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high
school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 813–834.
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education
technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307.
Czarnecki, K. (2009). How digital storytelling builds 21st century skills. Library Technology
Reports, 45(7), 15-19, 2.
Daugherty, M. K., Klenke, A. M., & Neden, M. (2008). Creating Standards-Based Technology
Education Facilities. Technology Teacher, 68(2), 19-26.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership,
61(8), 6-11.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of
psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Educational Testing Service. (2007) Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy.
Princeton, NJ: ETS.
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.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

109
Fraser, B. J. (1983). Managing positive classroom environments. In B. J. Fraser (Ed.), Classroom
management: Monograph in the faculty of education research seminar and workshop
series. Western Australian Institute of Technology: Faculty of Education.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century / thomas L.
friedman. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fullan, M. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandra, VA: ASCD.
Gibson, I. (2001). The role of school administrators in the process of effectively integrating
educational technology into school learning environments: New research from the
Midwest. International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and
Teacher Education, Orlando, FL.
Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. J., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through
collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4),
57-67.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., Lewis, L., & Tice, P. (2010). Teachers' use of educational technology in
U.S. public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). National Center for Education Statistics,
U.S. Department of Education.
Greaves, T. (2012). One-to-one Computing. In C. Dede, (Ed.), Digital Teaching Platforms:
Customizing Classroom Learning for Each Student (pp. 37). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Gregory, G., & Parry, T. (2006). Designing brain compatible learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

110
Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalities and distinctive patterns in teachers’
integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261–315.
Hall, L. (2006). Modeling technology integration for preservice teachers: A PT3 case study.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(4), 436-455.
Hermans, R., Tondeur, J., Valcke, M. M., & van Braak, J. (2006, April). Educational beliefs as
predictors of ICT use in the classroom. Paper presented at the convention of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
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(3), 223-252.
International Society for Technology in Education (2007). The national educational technology
standards and performance indicators for students. Eugene, OR: ISTE.
Jenson, J., Rose, C. (2001). What Difference Can Networked Classrooms Make? Presentation to
CEA Technology Summit. Toronto.
Jonassen, D., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive
tools. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and
technology (pp. 594–719). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W. (2004). The 21st century at work: Forces shaping the future
workforce and workplace in the United States (Vol. 164). Rand Corporation.
King, K. P. (2002). Educational technology professional development as transformative learning
opportunities. Computers & Education, 39(3), 283-297.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco:
Barrett-Koehler Publishers.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

111
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation
and Technology (Ed.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPCK) for educators (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kurt, S., & Ciftci, M. (2012). Barriers to Teachers' Use of Technology. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 39(3).
Lajoie, S. P., & Derry, S. J. (Eds.). (1993). Computers as cognitive tools. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the
next job market. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lim, C. P., Teo, Y. H., Wong, P., Khine, M. S., Chai, C. S., & Divaharan, S. (2003). Creating a
conducive learning environment for the effective integration of ICT: Classroom
management issues. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 14(4), 405–423.
Lumpe, A. T., & Chambers, E. (2001). Assessing teachers’ context beliefs about technology use.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 93-107.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McKendrick, J. H., & Bowden, A. (1999). Something for everyone? An evaluation of the use of
audio-visual resources in geographical learning in the UK. Journal of Geography in
Higher Education, 23(1), 9-20.
Metiri Group & NCREL. (2003). EnGauge 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age.
Chicago, IL: NCREL.
Milton, P. (2003). Trends in the Integration of ICT and Learning in K-12 Systems. Retrieved
March 10, 2013 from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.120.3712&rep1&type=pdf
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

112
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
Mulqueen, W. E. (2001). Technology in the classroom: Lessons learned through professional
development. EDUCATION-INDIANAPOLIS THEN CHULA VISTA-, 122(2), 248-
256.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2000). Teacher use of computer and the
Internet in public schools. Retrieved May 26, 2009, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000090.pdf
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110,115 Stat. 1425-2094 (2002).
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). The definition and selection
of key competencies: Executive summary. Paris, France: OECD.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept and
school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Perception (pp. 239–266). London,
UK: JAI press.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). A state leader’s action guide to 21st century skills: A
new vision for education. Tucson, AZ: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pedersen, J. T. (2006). K-12 Educators’ beliefs and attitudes toward technology integration in the
classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, KY.
Peel, H. A., Peel, B. B., & Baker, M. E. (2002). School/university partnerships: A viable model.
The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(7), 319-325.
Pert, C. (1993). The chemical communicators. In B. Moyers (Ed.), Healing and the mind (pp.
158-162). New York: Doubleday.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

113
Polly, D. (2011). Teachers' learning while constructing technology ‐based instructional resources.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 950-961.
Poplin, C. J. (2003). Models of professional development. T H E Journal, 30, 38-40. Saavedra,
A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching.
Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.
Project Tomorrow (2010). Unleashing the Future: Educators “Speak Up” about the use of
Emerging Technologies for Learning. Speak Up 2009 National Findings. Teachers,
Aspiring Teachers & Administrators, May 2010. Retrieved December 2010 from
www.tomorrow.org/speakup/
Protheroe, N. (2005). Technology and student achievement. Principal, November/December
2005. 46-48.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J.
Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, 2nd edn. (pp.
102–119). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Rogers, P. L. (2000). Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 455-472.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College.
Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century
teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8-13.
Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 113-125.
Schrum, L., & Glassett, K. F. (2006). Technology Integration in P-12 Schools. Journal of
Thought, 41(1), 41-58.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

114
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4),
207-231.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-
efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281-303).
NewYork: Plenum Press.
Shapley, K.S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the
implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student
achievement. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4).
Simpson, R. D., Koballa, T. R. Jr., & Oliver, J. S., & Crawley, F. E. (1994). Research on the
affective dimensions of science learning. In D. White (Eds.), Handbook of research on
science teaching and learning (pp. 211–235). New York: Macmillan.
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (2000). Research report on the effectiveness of technology in
schools. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association.
Smith, B. K., & Blankinship, E. (2000). Justifying imagery: multimedia support for learning
through exploration. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3/4), 749-768.
Snoeyink, R., & Ertmer, P. A. (2002). Thrust into technology: How veteran teachers respond.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 30(1), 85–111.
Stuart, L., & Dahm, E. (1999). 21st century skills for 21st century jobs. Federal Publications,
151.
US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology (2010). Transforming American
education: learning powered by technology, national educational technology plan
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/NETP-2010-final-report.pdf
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

115
Voyiatzaki, E., & Avouris, N. (2012). Support for the teacher in technology-enhanced
collaborative classroom. Education and Information Technologies, 19, 1-26.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1997). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4: The history of the
development of higher mental functions ( R.W. Rieber, Vol Ed; M. J. Hall, Trans.). New
York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1941)
Wang, M., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school learning.
Review of Educational Research, 63(3), 249–294.
West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2007). Benefits and challenges of using live modeling to help
preservice teachers transfer technology integration principles. Journal of Computing in
Teacher Education, 23(4), 137-147.
Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT:
Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 307-320.
Wishart, J., & Blease, D. (1999). Theories underlying perceived changes in teaching and learning
after installing a computer network in a secondary school. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 30(1), 25-42.
Zimmerman, B.J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self
regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33(2), 73-86.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Springer.
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

116
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676.

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

117
APPENDIX A
SURVEY BUILDER WORKSHEET
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Lack of knowledge of
technology proficiency
standards
I am able to list the
technology proficiency
standards at UAS

Lack of knowledge of
classification of
technology activities
I know how to classify
the technology
activities into the
appropriate technology
proficiency standards

Lack of skills in how
to integrate technology
into classrooms

I know how to look up
online information
using the available
databases (EBSCO,
Newsbank, Google
Scholar)

I know how to use
Smartboards in my
classrooms

I know how to create
interactive Smart
Lesson Plans

I know how to use the
Smart recorder to
record my class
activity

I know how to create
video using Smart
tools or other media
tools

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

118
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
I know how to post
announcements on the
LMS

I know how to post
homework assignments
on the LMS

I know how to post
lesson material to the
resources folders on
LMS

I know how to
organize my resource
folders to match my
curriculum topics

I know how to send
emails to parents using
Tag List on student
management system

I know how to look up
the student assessment
data (external &
internal) to use in my
lesson planning
activities

I know how to model
good digital citizenship
etiquette to my
students

I demonstrate use of
new technologies in
my classroom as way
to model new kinds of
learning to students

Lack of knowledge in
determining which
technology to be used
for which activity
I know how to choose
which technology is
best for the various
learning activity

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

119
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Teachers do not choose
to attend technology
workshops
I learn a lot from the
technology workshops

Teachers are not
willing to put the
mental effort to learn
how to integrate
technology into the
classrooms
I make a consistent
effort to implement the
knowledge gained
from technology
workshops

Due to the rapid pace
of technology updates
teachers are not willing
to apply the necessary
mental effort to master
the available
technology
I am not interested in
mastering the
technology proficiency
standards

The length of the
employment contract (
2 years) deters them
from learning any new
technology effectively
I am not interested in
learn new technology
as the I intend to stay
only for the length of
my employment
contract (2 years)

Lack of adequate
professional
development
I get adequate
professional
development for
use of technology
as per the
required
technology
proficiency
standards
Lack of technical
support during class
periods
I am provided
with adequate
technical support
to use technology
effectively in
classrooms
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

120
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Lack of clear
communication by
leadership on the
expectation of the use
of technology
I am clear on the
expectations on
the use of
technology set by
the leadership of
the school
Lack of incentives for
effectively using
technology in
classrooms
I am provided
with incentives
for effective use
of technology in
classrooms
Lack of evaluation
methodologies to
measure the use of
technology in
classrooms
I am aware of
evaluation
methodologies
for the measuring
the use of
technology in
classrooms
Lack of assessment of
prior technology skills
I have been
assessed on my
technology skills
prior to my start
date

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

121
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW BUILDER WORKSHEET
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Lack of knowledge of
technology proficiency
standards
Can you please
elaborate on the
technology proficiency
standards of UAS?

Lack of knowledge of
classification of
technology activities
How do you classify
the various technology
activities as per the
technology proficiency
standards?

Lack of skills in how to
integrate technology
into classrooms

Lack of knowledge in
determining which
technology to be used
for which activity
How do you make a
determination of which
technology to be used
for the required
classroom activity?

Teachers are not
motivated to attend
technology workshops
Do you find the
technology workshops
useful?

Teachers are not
willing to put the
mental effort to learn
how to integrate
technology into the
classrooms
What are the barriers
that you face when
attempting to use
technology in
classrooms?

Teachers lack of
motivation for mastery
of use of technology
due to availability of
new technology every
so often
Do you find the
introduction of new
technology very
frequently deters you
from learning the use
of technology in
classrooms?

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

122
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
The length of the
employment contract
(2 years) deters them
from learning any new
technology effectively
Do you find the length
of the employment
term to be de-
motivational factor in
your attempts of
mastering technology?

Lack of adequate
professional
development
Do you get the
adequate level of
professional
development
opportunities in
the area of use of
technology in
classrooms?
Lack of technical
support during class
periods
Do you get
adequate level of
technical support
for the effective
use of technology
in classrooms?
Lack of clear
communication by
leadership on the
expectation of the use
of technology
Do you have
clear
expectations
from leadership
in terms of the
use of technology
in classrooms?
Lack of incentives for
effectively using
technology in
classrooms
Are you provided
with additional
incentives to use
technology
effectively in
classrooms?
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

123
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Lack of evaluation
methodologies to
measure the use of
technology in
classrooms
Are you provided
with a good
understanding of
how you will be
evaluated in the
use of technology
in the
classrooms?
Lack of assessment of
prior technology skills
Do you think
prior assessment
of technology
proficiency of
teachers will be a
good practice
during the hiring
process?

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

124
APPENDIX C
OBSERVATION BUILDER WORKSHEET
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Lack of knowledge of
technology proficiency
standards

Lack of knowledge of
classification of
technology activities

Lack of skills in how to
integrate technology
into classrooms
Observations during
class sessions to
observe the nature of
instructional activity
with technology

Lack of knowledge in
determining which
technology to be used
for which activity
Observations during
class sessions to
identify which
technology is being
used when

Teachers are not
motivated to attend
technology workshops
Observations during
technology workshops
to determine the
attendance and activity
in the workshop
sessions

Teachers are not
willing to put the
mental effort to learn
how to integrate
technology into the
classrooms

Teachers lack of
motivation for mastery
of use of technology
due to availability of
new technology every
so often

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

125
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
The length of the
employment contract (
2 years) deters them
from learning any new
technology effectively

Lack of adequate
professional
development

Lack of technical
support during class
periods
Observations
during class time
to identify the
level of technical
support available
for teachers
Lack of clear
communication by
leadership on the
expectation of the use
of technology
Observations
during faculty
meetings on
discussion of
technology
Lack of incentives for
effectively using
technology in
classrooms

Lack of evaluation
methodologies to
measure the use of
technology in
classrooms

Lack of assessment of
prior technology skills

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

126
APPENDIX D
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS BUILDER WORKSHEET
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
Lack of knowledge of
technology proficiency
standards
Review any existing
documents outlining
the technology
proficiency standards
of the school

Lack of knowledge of
classification of
technology activities

Lack of skills in how to
integrate technology
into classrooms

Lack of knowledge in
determining which
technology to be used
for which activity

Teachers are not
motivated to attend
technology workshops

Teachers are not
willing to put the
mental effort to learn
how to integrate
technology into the
classrooms

Teachers lack of
motivation for mastery
of use of technology
due to availability of
new technology every
so often

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

127
Assumed Cause Knowledge Motivation Organization
The length of the
employment contract (
2 years) deters them
from learning any new
technology effectively
Review of documents
provided to teachers at
the time of recruitment

Lack of adequate
professional
development

Lack of technical
support during class
periods

Lack of clear
communication by
leadership on the
expectation of the use
of technology
Review of the
school
technology plan
document
Lack of incentives for
effectively using
technology in
classrooms

Lack of evaluation
methodologies to
measure the use of
technology in
classrooms
Review of any
teacher
evaluation
documents in the
use of
technology
Lack of assessment of
prior technology skills

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

128
APPENDIX E
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Introduction for the Participants

I would like to request your participation in this interview for a case study for my dissertation
topic called “Investigating the Lack of Use of Technology by Teachers for Instructional Purposes
in the Classroom”. The main goal of this interview is to understand what tools in the classroom
are effective for teachers in their instructional purposes. The names of the participants will be
kept anonymous and no personal identity will be revealed. I would like to request that you
provide me the permission to do an audio recording of this interview for transcribing purposes.
You can be rest assured that the recordings will be destroyed after the transcription process.
Please let me know, if this not acceptable and only written notes will be taken during the
interview.

Administrator Interview Questions

Role: (Administrator)
Years of Teaching Experience: (0 – Any)

Technology Proficiency Standards for Teachers

1) What are your views on the current technology proficiency standards for teachers?
(K,M,O)

Smartboards

2) What are expectations and goals you have set with teachers on the use of Smartboards as
instructional tool in classrooms? (K,M,O)

3) What would be some of the ways you can recommend to increase the use of Smartboards
in classrooms? (K,M,O)

LMS (Portal)

4) What are expectations and goals you have set with teachers on the use of the Portal in the
classroom? (K,M,O)

5) What would be some of the ways you can recommend to increase the use of Portal in
classrooms? (K,M,O)

Mobile Devices

6) What are your views about having students bring their own mobile devices to the
classrooms? (K,M,O)
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

129
Assessment of Use of Technology in Classrooms

7) How would you go about assessing the use of Smartboards in classrooms?

8) How would you go about assessing the use of Portal by teachers?

9) How would you go about assessing the use of mobile devices in classrooms?

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

130
APPENDIX F
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
The classrooms observations will be selected based on the survey response analysis to identify
the groups of respondents that use technology frequently and those that do not use technology as
desired. The classroom observations will be done after the survey response analysis and the
interviews of the appropriate respondents from each group.

The areas of observation:

 Elementary School Classrooms (Grade 4 – 6), 3 classrooms
 Secondary School Classrooms (Grade 7 – 12), 3 classrooms

The length of time for each observation – 30 minutes of the 50 minute class period

Observation Item No of Times action being performed
Using Basic Smartboard Features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Using Advanced Smartboard Features 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Accessing Resources from Portal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Using Mobile Devices to Engage with
students
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Requesting IT Help 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
IT Issues restricting class activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of time Online Resources being
accessed
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Online Resource being used

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

131
APPENDIX G
TEACHER SURVEY
I would like to request your participation in this survey for a case study for my dissertation on
the use of technology in the classroom. The main goal of this interview is to understand what
tools in the classroom are effective for teachers in their instructional purposes. Your responses
will be kept anonymous and no personal identity will be revealed.

Teacher Survey Questions

Gender: (Radio Button: Male/Female)
Grade Level: (Drop down list of Grade 4 – Grade 12)
Subject: (Drop Down List of Subjects)
Years of Teaching Experience: (0 – Any)

Smartboards

1) How familiar are you with the basic operational functions of Smartboards? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very familiar)
1 2 3 4 5

2) To what extent are you familiar with the SMART Notebook software? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very familiar)
1 2 3 4 5

3) How familiar are you with using the Smart Notebook Software to create interactive lesson
plans? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very familiar)
1 2 3 4 5

4) How familiar are you with using the recording feature of Smartboards? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very familiar)
1 2 3 4 5

5) To what extent do you find Smartboards to be an important aspect of your classroom
instructional activity? (M)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Extremely high)
1 2 3 4 5

6) To what extent do you use the Smart Notebook Software to create interactive lesson plans?
(M)
(Not at all) (Sometimes) (Always)
1 2 3 4 5

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

132
7) To what extent do you use the recording feature of Smartboards to record lesson plans for
students to access later? (M)
(Not at all) (Sometimes) (Always)
1 2 3 4 5

8) How often do you take the time to learn new features of the Smart Notebook software on your
own? (M)
(Not at all) (Sometimes) (Always)
1 2 3 4 5

9) To what extent do you feel overwhelmed when it comes to learning all the new features of the
Smart Notebook software? (M) (note the reverse-scoring of this item and recode when
analyzing)
(Not at all) (Sometimes)
(Extremely
overwhelmed)
1 2 3 4 5

10) To what extent do you attend all the professional development workshops for the use of
Smartboards? (M)
(Not at all) (Some) (All)
1 2 3 4 5

11) To what extent are you provided with IT support for the use of Smartboards in classrooms?
(O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Every time)
1 2 3 4 5

12) To what extent do you feel you are provided with professional development sessions for the
use of Smartboards? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (More than I need)
1 2 3 4 5

13) To what extent do you feel that leadership has set goals for use of Smartboards in
classrooms? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

14) To what extent do you feel you are provided with incentives from leadership for use of
Smartboards in classrooms? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

133
15) To what extent do you recommend having a peer learning group to help you in the use of
Smartboards in classrooms? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat)
(Strongly
recommend)
1 2 3 4 5

LMS (Portal)

18) How familiar are you with posting class announcements on the Portal? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very familiar)
1 2 3 4 5

19) How familiar are you with posting homework assignments on the Portal? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very familiar)
1 2 3 4 5

20) How familiar are you uploading lesson plans to the Portal for later use by students? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very familiar)
1 2 3 4 5

21) How familiar are you with organizing the resource folders on the portal as per the learning
topics? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very familiar)
1 2 3 4 5

22) How familiar are you with using discussion boards feature of portal for online discussions
with students? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very familiar)
1 2 3 4 5

23) To what extent do you consider the portal to be an important tool for classroom instruction?
(M)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Extremely high)
1 2 3 4 5

24) How frequently do you post class announcements on the portal? (M)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very frequently)
1 2 3 4 5

25) How frequently do you post homework assignments on the portal? (M)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very frequently)
1 2 3 4 5

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

134
26) How frequently do you upload all lesson plans and other learning resources to the portal?
(M)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very frequently)
1 2 3 4 5

27) How frequently do you use the discussion boards feature of portal for online discussions with
students? (M)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very frequently)
1 2 3 4 5

28) To what extend do you attend all the professional development workshops for use of the
Portal? (M)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Always)
1 2 3 4 5

29) To what extent are you provided with IT support for the use of the Portal? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Every time)
1 2 3 4 5

30) To what extent are you provided with professional development for the use of the Portal? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (More than I need)
1 2 3 4 5

31) To what extent do you feel that leadership has set goals for use of the Portal? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

32) To what extent do you feel you are provided with incentives from the leadership team for use
of the Portal? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

33) To what extent do you recommend having a peer learning group to help you in the use of the
Portal? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

Mobile Devices (Laptops, iPads, Smartphones)

36) To what extent do you feel you can manage the use of mobile devices by students in
classrooms? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

135
37) To what extent do you encourage the use of mobile devices for classrooms activities? (M)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

38) To what do you feel that expectations have been set by the leadership for the effective use of
mobile devices in classrooms? (O)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

Online Resources

41) To what extent are you aware of all the online subscription resources available for classroom
instruction? (K)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

42) To what extent do you use the online subscriptions at UAS in the classrooms? (M)
(Not at all) (Somewhat) (Very well)
1 2 3 4 5

Technology Proficiency Standards for Teachers

44) To what extent do you know the technology proficiency standards for teachers at UAS? (K)
1 2 3 4 5 6
(Low) (High)

Most popular technology for use in classrooms by Teachers at UAS
45) Please rank the following technologies in order of its effectiveness as a teaching tool for you
in the classroom: (CSQ3)
Smartboards (1-3)
Portal (1-3)
Mobile Devices (1-3)

46) Please list the top three Online Subscription resources at UAS you find valuable (in order):
(CSQ3)
(Ebsco, Mathletics, Brainpop)

LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

136
APPENDIX H
TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Introduction for the Participants

I would like to request your participation in this interview for a case study for my dissertation
topic called “Investigating the Lack of Use of Technology by Teachers for Instructional Purposes
in the Classroom”. The main goal of this interview is to understand what tools in the classroom
are effective for teachers in their instructional purposes. The names of the participants will be
kept anonymous and no personal identity will be revealed. I would like to request that you
provide me the permission to do an audio recording of this interview for transcribing purposes.
You can be rest assured that the recordings will be destroyed after the transcription process.
Please let me know, if this not acceptable and only written notes will be taken during the
interview.

Teacher Interview Questions

Grade Level: (K-12)
Subject:
Years of Teaching Experience: (0 – Any)

Smartboards

1) Can you please elaborate on the features of the smartboards that you find useful for
instructional purposes? (K). Please provide examples.

2) What are some of the challenges you face is using smartboards in the classroom?
(K,M,O)

3) What are some of the new features you have learnt this year for instructional purposes in
the classroom? (K,M) Can you please provide examples?

4) What would be some of the ways you can recommend to increase the use of smartboards
in classrooms? (K,M,O)

LMS (Portal)

5) Can you please elaborate on the features of the portal that you find useful for
instructional purposes in the classroom? (K)

6) What are some of the challenges you face in using the portal for instructional purposes in
the classroom? (K,M,O)

7) What are some of the new features you have learnt this year that could be useful for you
in the classroom? (K,M,O)
LACK OF USE OF TECHNOLOGY BY TEACHERS

137

8) What would be some of the ways you can recommend to increase the use of Portal in
classrooms? (K,M,O)

Mobile Devices

9) What are your views about having students bring their own mobile devices to the
classrooms? (K,M,O)

Technology Proficiency Standards for Teachers

10) What are your views on the current technology proficiency standards for teachers?
(K,M,O)

11) From your experience at Universal American School, what is the most effective
technology for instructional practices in the classroom? (CSQ3)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This research study applied the gap analysis problem‐solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2008) in order to help develop strategies to increase the use of technology by teachers for instructional activities at Universal American School. The purpose of the study was to identify whether the knowledge, motivation and organization barriers were contributing to the identified gap. A mixed‐method approach consisting of surveys, interviews and observations was used to collect data. Fifty‐nine teachers participated in a survey

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of elementary school leadership on student achievement: a gap analysis

PDF

Primary completion and achievement for 8th grade girls in rural Ethiopia: a gap analysis for gender inequities

PDF

An examination of teachers' proficiency in incorporating soft skills into instructions to culinary students at Kai Ping Culinary School: a gap analysis

PDF

Improving educational attainment at a bridge program in Saudi Arabia: a gap analysis

PDF

A gap analysis on improving teacher retention in kindergarten: a case of a private kindergarten in Hong Kong

PDF

Improving math achievement among fourth graders at Al-Corniche Primary For Girls: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining regular high school teachers’ roles in enhancing students academic performance: a gap analysis

PDF

Increasing partnerships between education and industry in the United Arab Emirates: a gap analysis

PDF

Increasing international student enrollment from China at Saint Louis School: a gap analysis

PDF

The use of gap analysis to increase student completion rates at Travelor Adult School

PDF

Teacher perceptions of Marzano's instructional strategies in traditional and virtual classrooms

PDF

Fostering competent professionals: instructional systems specialists at the instructional systems technology program

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

Increasing international student enrollment at an East Asian university: a gap analysis

PDF

Improving early grade reading instruction in Ghana: a discrepancy gap analysis

PDF

Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis

PDF

The principal, the achievement gap and Children's Literacy Initiative: a promising practice

PDF

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

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

Asset Metadata

Creator Nettikaden, Joseph C. (author)

Core Title Investigating the lack of use of technology by teachers for instructional activities in the classroom: a gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 08/29/2014

Defense Date 07/17/2014

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

Tag activities,analysis,classroom,gap,instructional,International,investigating,K12,lack,OAI-PMH Harvest,School,Technology,use

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy Max (committee chair), Filback, Robert (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email jnettika@hotmail.com,nettikad@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-466442

Unique identifier UC11287017

Identifier etd-Nettikaden-2859.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-466442 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Nettikaden-2859.pdf

Dmrecord 466442

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Nettikaden, Joseph C.

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