University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 1

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION AND INNOVATION
IN TEACHING AND LEARNING:
A CASE STUDY

by

Roxane Fuentes

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

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Roxane Fuentes
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 2

Dedication
Entering into this endeavor has been a shared goal and dream since I was 20 years old. I
was sitting on the couch in my parents’ living room having a conversation with my dad about my
college studies and what I may want to do in the future. This conversation included sharing a
long-term goal of earning my doctoral degree. My dad wholeheartedly supported this ambition,
and through the years as life intervened he would remind me of this goal. He would continually
check-in with me and ask when I was planning to go back to school to earn my doctorate. It did
not matter that I had already earned two masters degrees. My education was not yet finished in
his eyes.
Rudy Fuentes, my dad, was a hardworking man. He worked as a truck driver for Dunn
Edwards Paints for over 34 years. He never attended college, but recognized the importance of
an education for his daughters. Both he and my mom sent enough explicit and implicit messages
that my sisters and I just knew we were going to college. School progress and goals were often a
conversation at the dinner table, and a common saying from my dad was, “Work hard in school
so that when you get older you can work with your brain and not have to work with your hands.”
I was so happy to be able to share with both my parents when I learned I had been
accepted to USC’s doctoral program at Rossier, especially now since my dad passed away
unexpectedly at the end of that first semester. The start of the program was difficult for many
reasons - learning to manage my time, personal and professional, and sprucing up my academic
writing. There were a few meltdowns that first semester as well, which my dad would remind
me, “Just breathe, and do your best.” Words I often told myself as the work progressed and got
more challenging.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 3

Over the three years, I have spent many a Sunday morning at my dad’s gravesite reading
my articles, writing my papers, reviewing my chapters, and remembering to “just breathe.” My
dad has been with me throughout this process, silently nurturing and encouraging me along the
way. Even my case study location was a place our family had planned to visit that week he
passed away. Little did I know then that I would later still have an opportunity to visit that place
with him in spirit. Dad, we did it, and I’m finally finished with school. I lovingly dedicate this
dissertation to you.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 4

Acknowledgements
It cannot be expressed enough the extent of support, inspiration, and guidance that is
beneficial when taking on the endeavor of earning a doctoral degree. I am incredibly blessed to
have several supporters in my camp these past three years. Some of these individuals have been
my supporters for years while others have become new members of my support team during my
experience here at Rossier. All have been continual voices of encouragement, support,
motivation, and compassion contributing to my success.
I am completely indebted to my mom, Esperanza Fuentes, and my sisters, Monique,
Jennifer, and Cassandra, for everything they have given to me. I thank my mom for all the
meals, errands, and hugs I have needed when I just did not feel I could do one more thing.
Special thanks to my sisters for encouraging me throughout the process, and counting down with
me as each chapter of this dissertation was completed. Thank you for the late night talks of
exasperation, funny texts for needed distraction, and, special thanks, for always keeping me
grounded and humble, too. To my niece Roxy, and nephews, Gavin and Jaycub, I hope I have
been a good example to you and a reminder that you can do anything you set your mind on, and I
am here to help you meet those goals.
Special thanks to my friends and colleagues for checking in with me periodically, and
always being ready to provide any needed encouragement and support. I appreciate all the text
“check-ins” just to be sure I was still alive, and all the empathy when I could not participate in
celebrations and gatherings. It made things easier knowing my time away writing was
temporary, and you were all there cheering me on to the finish line. Silvia, an extra big thank
you for helping me remain sane during those moments I doubted being able to manage it all.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 5

I am blessed to have gained many mentors during this program – Dr. Roach, Dr. Mafi,
and Dr. Castruita. I appreciate your insight and advice as I navigated my new position as
assistant superintendent while also trying to complete my program. Thank you for your
candidness, lessons learned, and humor. Mr. Galindo, thank you for not only your flexibility, but
for your openness and interests in discussing what I was learning, and helping me think through
its application for our collaborative work in the district. Dr. Hocevar, thank you for your
methodology expertise and insight in making sure the data collection process was authentic and
thorough. Dr. Gothold, thank you for holding my hand throughout this entire dissertation
process. You are a true teacher, and I admire you a great deal. Thank you for quickly
responding to emails, taking early and late night calls, and for all your encouraging words. It
was a privilege to be a member of your dissertation team.
Finally, to my dissertation team and “OC” cohort, we did it! You are my Trojan family
forever. Thank you for the study groups, weekend writes, and email vents. I am so proud of all
of you, and appreciate your talent and spirit. I know we will all continue to support each other in
all we aspire to do. Allyson and Carlos, extra hugs to my Trojan sister and brother. Thank you
for everything. Cindy, Julissa, and Matt, you were the best accountability partners ever! Fight
On!!!

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 6

Table of Contents
List of Tables 8
Abstract 9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the study 12
Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 13
Methodology 14
Assumptions 15
Limitations 15
Delimitations 15
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Study 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
Introduction 20
History 20
Impact of Technology 22
Barriers 26
Teacher Ideology 30
Professional Development 32
Promising Practices 34
Summary 36
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 38
Introduction 38
Research Questions 39
Conceptual Model 39
Figure 1: Conceptual Model: TPACK 40
Research Design 41
Population and Sample 42
Instrumentation 44
Data Collection 46
Validity and Reliability 48
Data Analysis 49
Ethical Considerations 49
Summary 50
Chapter Four: Results 51
Research Questions 52
Methodology 52
Background of Innovation High School 54
Gaining Entry 55
First Visitation at the School Site 56
Findings by Research Question 57
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 7

Research Question One 59
Summary of Findings for Research Question One 62
Research Question Two 66
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two 70
Research Question Three 71
Summary of Findings for Research Question Three 80
Emergent Themes 81
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Model 82
Summary 83
Chapter Five: Discussion 85
Overview 85
Purpose, Significance, and Methodology 85
Conclusions 87
Implications 91
Recommendations for Further Study 93
References 95
Appendix A: Document Analysis Tool 101
Appendix B: Survey Protocol 104
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 107
Appendix D: Observation Protocol 109

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 8

List of Tables
Table 1: Survey Results for Research Question One – Part 1 64
Table 2: Survey Results for Research Question One – Part 2 64
Table 3: Survey Results for Research Question One – Part 3 65
Table 4: Survey Results for Research Question Two – Part 1 67
Table 5: Survey Results for Research Question Two – Part 2 68
Table 6: Survey Results for Research Question Three – Part 1 77
Table 7: Survey Results for Research Question Three – Part 2 77

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 9

Abstract
With the launch of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) emphasizing 21
st
century
skills and standardized online assessments, the availability of technology in the classroom has
increased. Although technology can be a novel tool that captures student engagement, its ability
to increase student achievement outcomes is a much more complex process. The purpose of this
study was to identify the practices that have promoted the use of technology to transform
teaching and learning in a high-performing secondary school which could then serve as a model
for others.
The results of the study addressed the following research questions: (1) What technology
is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the classroom; (2) What is the perceived
impact of technology on teaching and learning; and (3) In what ways does the school climate and
leadership support the integration of technology? The study utilized a qualitative case study
design in order to adequately apply Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) conceptual model to assist in unveiling the best practices used in
schools integrating technology successfully as evidenced by increased student achievement
outcomes based on 21
st
century learning skills.
Through triangulation of various forms of data collected, the following five themes
emerged that shaped the innovation occurring at the case study school site: shared vision,
collaborative school culture, systemic professional development, tradition, and teaching and
learning. The themes are reflective of a learning environment enriched by technology where
students are engaged and given the space to both rise to the occasion and fail. Ultimately, the
school staff discovered creating a community of learners for both adults and students supports
the notion that teaching and learning together is the only way to move forward.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 10

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The traditional school as we know it is quickly coming to a close as school districts do
their best to transform today’s student learning environments into a setting that meets the
demands of a digital and information-rich society. With greater emphasis on individual learning
and performance, schools are quickly trying to offer students new types of learning experiences
that support not only a pathway to college, but career readiness as well, a key focus of the new
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Technology inevitably becomes a key player in this
transformation process of teaching and learning. As commerce has long incorporated technology
in its daily business routine and main mode of communication, technology must now be
integrated into school curriculum so that students develop the tools needed to be capable users of
technology, information seekers, and astute problem-solvers and communicators. Teachers, as a
result, are working hard towards developing lessons that are based in 21
st
century learning skills
– critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity (The Partnership for 21
st

Century, 2011).
Fortunately, today technology availability in school is less of an issue than it had been
previously. Access to technology in the classroom has grown in recent years, funding has been
made available to school districts to support online state assessments, and, to widen availability
further, school administrators are establishing “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) policies
which quickly allows for a 1:1 environment. However, the impact of technology on teaching and
learning is still in debate. With little vision and planning, many schools are using digital tools as
modes for assessment only or as replacement tools for traditional teaching practices (Lawless a&
Pelligrino, 2007). For example, using a whiteboard app on an iPad or tablet does not transform
students’ learning experiences. Furthermore, using a power point can quickly become just
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 11

another lecture unless the strategies embedded within that power point provide students
opportunities to collaborate, think critically, be creative, and communicate their thoughts with
one another.
A successful district integrating technology understands that it is imperative to the
initiative to provide the right support for teachers so that technology does not become a barrier to
teaching and learning. Before teachers can transform their learning environments for students,
they need to believe that technology does enhance student learning, and they have to establish a
strong foundation of pedagogy and skills in using technology effectively. Therefore, technology-
focused professional development will be essential if technology integration is going to be used
to promote learning for all students (Plair, 2008). Technology needs to be integrated into
teachers’ daily instruction (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Well-designed professional
development plans should be promoted along with extensive teacher time to experiment with
programs, collaborate in curriculum planning with colleagues, and implement new practices in
the classroom (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Desimone, 2009; Keengwe & Onchwari,
2011). More research in this area continues to be a critical need.
Statement of the Problem
With the launch of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) emphasizing 21
st
century
skills and standardized online assessments, the availability of technology in the classroom has
increased. Unfortunately, the motive behind the influx of laptops, tablets, and iPads in schools
has been assessments and accountability, not necessarily teaching and learning. This means,
technology is quickly being placed in teachers and students hands without a plan. A review of
the literature reveals that technology integration in most of America’s public schools has yet to
be implemented in a systematic way (Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Chai, & Tsai, 2013). Current
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 12

research, however, reveals advances in student learning when technology was integrated
consistently in the classroom and through high quality instructional delivery. Nevertheless,
having the adults in the school community adapt to the habits of their students, digital natives,
has proven to be a challenge.
Technology is a novel tool that captures student engagement, but the ability to produce
student outcomes integrating technology is a much more complex process that some schools
have begun to navigate. The literature does identify strong leadership, equitable resources, and
effective professional development practices as key components for schools found to be
successful in integrating technology and impacting teaching and learning. Missing from the
literature is teachers’ beliefs about the use of technology and their perception on its merits to
increasing academic gains, which has strong influence on others and their own teaching methods
emphasized in the classroom. More research is necessary to highlight these innovative schools
and the best practices they are implementing to motivate and support teachers’ instruction and
integration of technology in the classroom.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the practices that have promoted the use of
technology to transform teaching and learning in a high-performing secondary school.
Research Questions
The study addresses the following three research questions developed by the members of
a thematic dissertation group:
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 13

3. In what ways does the school climate and leadership support the integration of
technology?
Significance of the Study
As previously mentioned, schools continue to fail to integrate technology into the
classroom in a systematic way (Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Chai, & Tsai, 2013). Although
technological tools are increasingly available, technology in the classroom is not necessarily
having positive effects on student achievement. This study will validate promising instructional
practices used with technology integration that can be replicated across schools. It provides
models being used that enhance student learning and have room for growth. In addition, it
advises practitioner of the potential barriers that impede technology integration from being
sustainable, such as teacher ideology and professional development.
The study focuses on a critical need for cohesive professional development so that
promising best practices are sustainable. Research emphasizes the importance of high quality
teachers and the significant impact teacher effectiveness has on student achievement. However,
the literature in the area of professional development and technology integration is still limited.
The research does not address what teachers perceive to be critical for their own learning
experience. The literature also does not differentiate the type of professional development
differentiation teachers may need in the area of technology based on pre-service and in-service
needs. This study reveals how professional development can take various forms. Furthermore,
the study begins to identify instructional methods that are most effective and influential with
teacher motivation and learning of technology integration in the classroom so that there is a
positive impact on student learning.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 14

Methodology
The study used qualitative, descriptive research methods to best identify key practices
used in schools to integrate technology in the classroom. Given the constant change of
technology development and use, a qualitative approach is best. It provides an avenue for
exploration of variables that may not be known yet (Creswell, 2009). Furthermore, Creswell
(2009) supports the notion that qualitative methods are appropriate if “a concept or phenomenon
needs to be understood because little research has been done on it” (p. 18). Such is the case for
technology integration in the classroom, and its impact on teaching and learning.
The study also utilized a qualitative case study design in order to adequately apply the
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework to assist in unveiling the
best practices used in schools integrating technology successfully as evidenced by increased
student achievement outcomes based on 21
st
century learning skills. A case study design is an
opportunity for an “in-depth study of instances of a phenomenon in its natural context and from
the perspective of the participants involved in the phenomenon” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p.
436). Moreover, case study design allows for descriptive data to be collected of the phenomena
and potential explanations of perceived patterns and trends to be presented (Gall, Gall, & Borg,
2003).
The thematic dissertation team consisted of eleven doctoral candidates from the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. The team was under the
guidance of dissertation chair, Dr. Stuart Gothold. The group met monthly from August 2013 to
January 2015 to collaborate and formulate the research design for the case study. Each member
chose a school that met a minimum five out of seven criterion developed by the team. Each
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 15

member of the dissertation team chose their own school and research was collected and analyzed
individually.
Assumptions
The case study was written based on the following assumptions:
1. Participants were genuine and honest with the information provided during interviews and
surveys.
2. Any documents and data received and reviewed were valid.
3. Observations made were an authentic picture of the school’s culture and daily routine.
Limitations
Due to the design of the study, there were various limitations, which include:
1. The duration of the visit was brief, and access to the school was based on site
administrator’s discretion.
2. The case study is reflective only of the time the observations were conducted.
3. The participants interviewed and surveyed were limited to one school site.
4. The participant sample size was small.
5. The findings cannot be generalized given the design of the qualitative study of just one
particular school.
6. The interpretations of the study were solely that of the researcher.
Delimitations
The case study conducted included the following delimitations:
1. Criteria for school selection were established by the thematic dissertation team.
2. The document and data collection was limited to one school.
3. School site visits were arranged within a two-week period.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 16

4. The TPACK framework was used to provide criteria for identifying best practices.
5. The participants in the study were not randomly selected.
6. The generalizability of the findings is limited to the school selected for the case study.
Definition of Terms
A. Academic Performance Index (API). The cornerstone of California’s Public Schools
Accountability Act of 1999; measures the academic performance and growth of schools
on a variety of academic measures on scale of 200 to 1000 (www.cde.ca.gov).
B. Academic Yearly Progress (AYP). Under California’s criteria for ESEA, a series of
annual academic performance goals established for each school, LEA, and the state as a
whole. Schools, LEAs, and the state are determined to have met AYP if they meet or
exceed each year’s goals in the following areas: participation rate, percent proficient,
API, and graduation rate (www.cde.ca.gov).
C. Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). School district policy established that allows students
to bring their own technology device (laptop, iPad, Smartphone, etc.) from home to use in
the classroom for instructional purposes.
D. California Standards Test (CST). A range of assessments under the California STAR
umbrella testing students in 2
nd
-12
th
grade in a variety of academic areas
(www.cde.ca.gov).
E. California Department of Education (CDE). The governing body for public education in
the state of California.
F. Common Core State Standards (CCSS). A set of high-quality academic standards in
mathematics and English language arts/literacy developed by a consortium of national
representatives and adopted by the majority of states (www.corestandards.org).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 17

G. Computer Adaptive Tests (CAT). Computer based tests that adapt in difficulty depending
on the responses of the test taker.
H. Critical Thinking, Communication, Collaboration, Creativity (4Cs). Four critical skills
developed by the Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills needed by 21
st
century students in
order for them to actively participate in the increasingly digital world (www.p21.org).
I. International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE). The International Society for
Technology in Education is the premier nonprofit organization serving educators and
education leaders committed to empowering connected learners in a connected world
(www.iste.org).
J. Levels of Technology Integration (LoTi). A model for technology integration that
employs a one to six scale to describe levels of technology integration from least
effective to most effective (Moersch, 1995).
K. No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a United
States Act of Congress that is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, which included Title I, the government's flagship aid program for
disadvantaged students. NCLB supports standards-based education reform based on the
premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve
individual outcomes in education
(http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html).
L. School Accountability Report Card (SARC). California public schools annually provide
information about themselves to the community allowing the public to evaluate and
compare schools for student achievement, environment, resources and demographics
(www.cde.ca.gov).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 18

M. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Content or project based
pedagogy that holistically incorporates science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics as a means of developing student interest and capacities in these areas.
N. Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). A comprehensive school document that
involves the collection and analysis of student performance data, setting goals for
program improvement, and ongoing monitoring of the goals and results
(www.cde.ca.gov).
O. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Smarter Balanced is a state-led
consortium developing assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards in
English language arts/literacy and mathematics that are designed to help prepare all
students to graduate high school college- and career-ready (www.smarterbalanced.org).
P. Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR). The STAR Program looks at how well
schools and students are performing. Students take tests in math, reading, writing,
science, and history. Teachers and parents can use test results to improve student learning
(www.cde.ca.gov).
Q. Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (P21). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21)
was founded in 2002 as a coalition bringing together the business community, education
leaders, and policymakers to position 21st century readiness at the center of US K-12
education (www.p21.org).
R. Project Based Learning (PBL). Project-based learning is a pedagogical approach focused
on teaching by engaging students in investigation. Within this framework, students
pursue solutions to nontrivial problems by asking and refining questions, debating ideas,
making predictions, designing plans and/or experiments, collecting and analyzing data,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 19

drawing conclusions, communicating their ideas and findings to others, asking new
questions, and creating artifacts (Blumenfeld, 1991).
S. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). A framework for successful
technology integration that states that ideal teaching and learning with technology takes
place when teachers possess the right content knowledge, utilize the right pedagogical
approaches, and select the right technology to meet their learning objectives (Koehler &
Mishra, 2009).
Organization of the Study
The case study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of the
study. It includes a brief introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, the
research questions, significance of the study, methodology, operating assumptions, limitations,
delimitations, and definition of terms used throughout the study. Chapter Two presents a review
of the literature. This chapter highlights the history of technology integration in the classroom,
the impact it has ha don student learning, and the barriers, professional development, and
promising practices that have come to light as schools move forward with enhancing 21
st
century
learning environments for students. Chapter Three provides a review of the research
methodology applied to the case study. It presents the TPACK conceptual framework applied,
details the school selected and how it meets the criteria chosen by the thematic dissertation team,
and includes the research design and protocols selected to examine the case study. Chapter Four
will summarize and examine the key findings of the case study, and explain the themes revealed
in the research. Finally, Chapter Five presents a summary of the case study and discusses the
implications for research and practice, as well as conclusions of the study. References and
Appendices will follow.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 20

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
With the forthcoming of California’s full implementation of the Common Core State
Standards, which includes online Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium student tests, the
pressure for schools to prepare students for college and career is even greater. As a result of
moving student learning further along for the 21
st
century, where students are expected to have
the skills and abilities to think critically and compete in a global economy, many school districts
are mass purchasing iPads, tablets, and laptops for both teachers and students to prepare for this
shift in instructional expectations. In doing so, districts and their staff will confront new
challenges in regards to technology integration in the classroom. The purpose of this study is to
identify practices that promote the use of technology which transform teaching and learning in a
21
st
century K-12 school. This section will provide a review of the literature available on the
topic. Areas for review will include the history of technology in schools, positive and negative
impacts of technology, barriers, current implications for schools and school leadership, teacher
ideology towards technology integration, and current promising practices.
History. With the advent of technology, educators, businessmen, and others have been
intrigued to explore the potential benefits technology could bring to instruction and student
learning. In the early 1900s, John Dewey (1915) recognized the importance of students being
technologically literate so that they could be knowledgeable and productive citizens of a
democratic society. Dewey (1915) desired schools to be a place where students could
collectively build new knowledge and skills while producing responses that met societal needs
through a creative, inquiry-based process. In a debate about whether a student’s education
should be vocational or an education that would produce the skills for any occupation, Dewey
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 21

clearly states his expectations for a student’s educational framework:
What is wanted is that pupils shall form the habit of connecting the limited information
they acquire with the activities of life, and gain ability to connect a limited sphere of
human activity with the scientific principles upon which its successful conduct depends.
(Dewey, 1915, pp. 246-247)
Both Dewey (1915) and Freire (1993) argued against an educational system that simply expected
regurgitation of information. Freire (1993) was known for his banking model of education,
claiming that students are placed in an oppressed position simply receiving or “banking”
information predetermined by the teacher or authoritarian. He also argued for the importance of
creative and freethinking so that students could better “problem pose” based on societal needs,
and develop collaboratively movements for social change (Freire, 1993). Through problem
posing an issue within a student’s own community, for example, the students would quickly
learn there are no easy answers, and further develop their critical thinking skills which will be
needed in relating to the world around them (Freire, 1993).
Similar to Dewey (1915) and Freire (1993), Resnick (2002) also calls for a shift in thinking
about education, and how new technologies can direct student learning. Dewey (1915) was
inspired to support the industrial society emerging while Resnick (2002) goes further to share
that advanced technology developed everyday not only increases possibilities for creativity, but
requires it. Resnick (2002) encourages active engagement in the classroom where students can
explore their imaginations and apply creative problem solving to today’s issues. Technology can
be used to expand students’ abilities to communicate and learn not only from within the confines
of their classroom and community, but globally via the internet and other social networking
resources. If adults can retain their creative nature as children, there will be no bounds for what
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 22

they can contribute to their own lives and communities (Resnick, 2002).
Dewey (1915), Freire (1993), and Resnick (2002) were definitely in alignment with
constructivist theory for learning in the classroom, which continues to be called for a century
later. With a clear goal of college and career readiness, the current educational reform
movement of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) requires student knowledge and
application of technological skills, such as research and global networking capabilities, beyond
retrieving information and keyboarding (Porter, McMaken, Hwang, & Yang, 2011). The CCSS
are based in the 21
st
century learning framework. The 21st century learning framework includes
emphasis on communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity (Partnership for 21
st

Century Skills, 2011). The integration of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and
creativity will be essential for student learning so that they are prepared to venture into their
future lives and careers which have yet to be identified, but will include high technological
application. According to the Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (2011),
When a school or district builds on this foundation, combining the entire Framework with
the necessary support systems—standards, assessments, curriculum and instruction,
professional development and learning environments—students are more engaged in the
learning process and graduate better prepared to thrive in today’s global economy.
(Discussion section, para. 4)
Impact of technology. Research has shown the significant influence technology
integration can have on teaching and learning practices in the classroom, such influences have
been both positive and negative. Positive impacts for technology integration include increased
student motivation, additional opportunities for differentiated instruction, and the development of
21
st
century learning skills. Potential negative effects found in the literature include loss of
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 23

socialization skills, issues of access and equity, and possibly the removal of the need for a
teacher. All perceived impacts will be further discussed.
Student motivation is often a key concern for educators, and many instructional strategies
have been studied to keep students engaged and focused on learning (Pintrich, 2003).
Motivation has been an area of focus because it is what moves individuals to action and helps
sustain goal-oriented behaviors (Pintrich, 2003). Motivation is critical for engagement, interests,
and helps individuals establish goals. Technology integration in the classroom has shown to
increase student engagement and motivation on immediate implementation because of student
familiarity with technology (November, 2012). Technology is high interest to students and
provides many engaging visuals. Research has further shown that when technology is integrated
into the classroom alongside high-level instructional strategies based in Bloom’s Taxonomy,
student metacognition and engagement are even greater (Brady, Seli, & Rosenthal, 2013;
Hernandez-Ramos, 2005). According to Brady, Seli, and Rosenthal (2013), the use of
technology, and specifically clickers, a tool focused on in their study, increased student
participation, helped maintain instructional focus due to the required response with the tool, and
even had a positive impact on student attendance in school.
Classrooms today are filled with diverse student bodies with varied academic and social
needs. Differentiated instruction is an instructional approach that is based in ongoing
assessments of students so that instruction can be modified accordingly and student learning
personalized – by ability level, interests, final product, etc. (Smith & Throne, 2007). Technology
applications, both devices and programming, have high potential for providing differentiated
instruction for all students. Walsh (2012) in reviewing the benefits of classrooms that provide
1:1 laptops for students suggests that using technology as a learning tool, such as a laptop,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 24

increases engagement, provides a differentiated environment for teaching and learning, and
increase student achievement as a result. Providing differentiation for students does take
additional time for planning and reviewing assessment data, but at the same time technology
assists teachers in the classroom in being more efficient and effective (Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E.,
Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. L., 2008; Smith & Throne, 2007). Online data
management systems assist the teacher in expediting their review of student data, modifying their
instruction in shorter time intervals, and increased access to laptops or iPads allow for students to
demonstrate their learning in a variety of ways as well as giving the teacher the ability to provide
assignments better tailored to the student’s interests and ability (Walsh, 2012).
The use of technology practices in the classroom also supports a 21st century learning
framework, providing students an engaging method for applying communication, collaboration,
critical thinking, and creativity skills. Technology integration in conjunction with the 21
st

century learning framework provides teachers the opportunity to create a learning environment
for students that is reflective and applicable to the real-world settings for college and career
(Bell, 2010; Montelongo & Herter, 2010). According to Montelongo and Herter (2010), using
technology as a tool for instructional activities will not only engage students, but provide them
the avenue to practice communication and collaboration skills with their peers and others they
meet through social networking, encouraging them to think critically in a more global manner.
Technology integration also provides students access to multiple resources beyond their
classroom, which encourages creativity and develops their problem solving skills so that they can
become productive members of society for the 21
st
century (Bell, 2010). Bell (2010) further
expresses how 21
st
century learning and the development of the “4 Cs” – communication,
collaboration, critical thinking, and communication – is an authentic way of learning that mere
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 25

standardized assessments cannot capture. Building students’ 21
st
century skills with the use of
technology tools extends and enriches their learning, and offers real-life inquiry opportunities
better equipping them for full engagement in later experiences during college and in the
workforce.
Research has shown that in the new age of technology students are at risk of not
developing traditional communication skills and social etiquette involved in face to face
interaction with others (Valkenburg & Peter, 2009). McEwan (2011) conducted a study on
college students and how social media use such as Facebook impacted student socialization
skills. The study demonstrated that there were a few social deficit risks for students who were
highly engaged with social media networks, such as inept communication skills, information
overload, less interest in expanding existing social networks offline, and potential academic
deficits due to increased distractions online (McEwan, 2011). Critical here is for internet use
amongst students to be monitored, norms be established and made clear, and opportunities for
group or collaborative work in the classroom be amplified so students are continuing to develop
their interpersonal skills in face-to-face settings (McKewan, 2011; Valkenburg & Peter, 2009).
Another potential negative impact of technology integration in the classroom has
surrounded the potential issue of a classroom no longer requiring a teacher. Increased use of
online learning and virtual schools, for example, have de-emphasized, in some cases, the need
for actual face-to-face teacher interaction and instruction (Hastie, 2007). However, other
research indicates that although less teacher facilitation may be needed in a 21
st
century
classroom, the instructional design is still heavily dependent on teacher expertise, and students,
as they problem-solve, will still need their teacher as an additional resource (Thompson, 20103).
Thompson (2013) found that students continue to prefer in person interaction with their teacher
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 26

for clarification, questions, and reflection of their learning. Direct teacher feedback and
demonstrate also still held significant value, especially for students requiring academic
remediation or intervention (Thompson, 2013). In fact, Thompson (2013) stated the following:
Technology is indeed an important influence in students’ lives, but it is one influence
among many, and teachers still have an opportunity to help their digital native students
navigate successfully through the promises and pitfalls of learning in the digital world.
(p. 23)
Thompson (2013) recognizes the critical role of the teacher, how their role will change with the
introduction of technology into the classroom, and, therefore, identifying the need for teacher
preparation and change in scope and sequence for professional development.
Barriers. As with any new venture or innovation, there will be barriers and obstacles to
overcome. This is true for technology integration in schools as well. The research highlights a
few common barriers that districts and schools encounter as they attempt to integrate technology
into their classrooms. Such barriers include efficiency of upgrading technology, a lack of
resources, the level of teacher knowledge and skill required to implement technology effectively,
leadership and school climate (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007;
Musawi, 2011; Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002).
As technology emerged, a clear division between the “haves” and “have-nots” were
evident based on sufficiency of district or site resources (Hew & Brush, 2007; Ringstaff &
Kelley, 2002). Many schools are dealing with outdated equipment and a need for increased
funding prioritized for technology. Technology integration is a high fiscal expense and requires
multiple funding resources, which may include district funding, bond allocations, and grant or
foundation support. Although some states like California are beginning to provide such funding,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 27

most schools are operating under the constraints of their site budgets or are dependent upon local
foundation support (Baron, 2013). In particular, high poverty schools were found to have the
least amount of technology equipment across the nation (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002). Hall’s
(2010) study further suggests that there is also a resource gap between the devices and
applications many students use at home in comparison to what is accessible to them in school,
creating a constant game of catch up for schools and classroom teachers to ensure timely
integration of technology innovation and practicum. It is critical that schools and districts have a
long-term funding plan in place for supporting technology upgrades and expansion in their
schools.
Other barriers along the lines of school resources go beyond funding, and include access
to technology, time, and appropriate technology support (Hew & Brush, 2007). Student and
teacher access to technology needs to be considered and a plan developed so that teaching and
learning practices with technology can be maximized. For example, Ringstaff and Kelley’s
(2002) research found that computer laboratories were not necessarily the most conducive to
maximizing technology integration. Computer laboratories and sufficient internet connectivity
greatly limited the amount of time students could access technological tools based on schedule
availability, and did not allow for sufficient time for teachers to practice and plan their lessons
(Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002). Furthermore, as mentioned, time for teachers to explore and
organize appropriate resources online is limited during the school day and often requires teachers
to do so after hours or at home. The limitation here is teacher willingness to give the extra time
as well as their expertise in navigating web resources and utilizing various software programs
and applications (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002). Finally, when technology is in use there will be
troubleshooting required with infrastructure, hardware, and software. Most school sites do not
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 28

have any on-site tech support personnel and district IT staff vary in numbers and can be
overburdened with wok order requests causing a delay in classroom support and disruption with
effective instruction utilizing technology (Ringstaff & Kelley, 2002; Hew & Brush, 2007).
Another area reviewed as a potential barrier to technology integration in the classroom is
the level of knowledge and technological skills of the classroom teacher. According to Ertmer
and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), teachers have a much more critical role than the technology
itself, and should be considered as the key change agents. This is only possible, however, if
knowledge gaps are identified and supported. It is important to note that although most research
does identify teacher skill as a critical component for the success of technology integration
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Petriashvili, 2012), Guo,
Dobson, and Petrina (2008) did conduct a study that found no difference between digital natives
and immigrants in terms of being able to develop comparable skills once properly trained. This
lends itself again to the importance of needs assessments, which must be completed to assist in
determining the level of professional development training and support teachers will need for
technology integration (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Given the current movement
towards 21
st
century learning and technology integration, Petriashvili (2012) even highlights the
importance of providing technological instruction in teacher preparation programs so teachers
begin to build their skills and recognize the effective impact of integrating technology in the
classroom from the beginnings of their teaching career.
Koehler and Mishra (2009) further recommend that teacher abilities and skill
development need to be focused in three interrelated areas: technology, pedagogy, and content.
Technology knowledge provides the teacher the ability to look beyond the technology tool or
program itself and how it can be expanded to classroom and everyday use, a call for creativity
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 29

which is imperative given the constant evolution of technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Teachers also need to have a good understanding of their content, whatever subject matter that
may be, as well as a strong understanding of the processes required for student learning and
application which assists teachers in scaffolding instruction appropriately (Koehler & Mishra,
2009). Expertise in and the ability to understand how all three areas- technology, content, and
pedagogy- support and enhance one another are required to foster “the flexible knowledge
needed to successfully integrate technology use into teaching” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 60).
Furthermore, this flexibility suggests the need for instructional planning and teaching to involve
“continually creating, maintaining, and re-establishing a dynamic equilibrium among all
components,” a challenging task for your typical classroom teacher (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p.
67).
Finally, the current shift towards Common Core State Standards is an educational reform
initiative attempting to provide a new framework for students to be more college and career
ready, including a pathway for enhancing 21
st
century learning and technology integration. An
essential element to this initiative’s success and another potential barrier to successful integration
of technology in the classroom is the level of instructional leadership exhibited not only by
teachers, but district administration and school principals. Research has indicated a direct link
between instructional leadership and improved student achievement (Louis, Leithwood,
Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). Daggett and Jones (2008) argue that school change best occurs
when it is guided by leadership, determined by data, and includes on-going professional
development based on that data. The authors also share how imperative it is for school
leadership to address the “why, what, where, and how” when implementing a new initiative or
change (Daggett & Jones, 2008). This is critical information for administration to take into
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 30

account when launching their 21
st
century schools and technology plans, and suggests possible
areas of focus for administrative professional development (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).
School leadership will also be responsible for establishing an open and supportive school
climate that promotes innovation (Hew & Brush, 2006). In Hew and Bush’s (2006) study, they
found that teachers felt their administrators did not have a good understanding of the
instructional intents for integrating technology and therefore created additional barriers to
implementing technology in the classroom. These barriers included lack of a shared vision for
technology integration, class scheduling issues which did not support the time needed to
incorporate technology related projects, sufficient professional development opportunities
relevant to the teachers, and lack of long-term planning for technology upgrades and
enhancements as well as foresight of how technology would be supported beyond the school site
(Hew & Brush, 2009). Without purposeful planning, reflection, and support from
administration, teachers have a difficult time supporting any new initiative.
Teacher ideology. Teacher acceptance of technology and their self-efficacy based on
use of technology and experience heavily impacts their ability to implement technology in the
classroom effectively and warrants further consideration. Hew and Brush (2006) found teacher
attitudes and beliefs a significant barrier if the teachers did not like technology, were
uncomfortable using technology, or simply felt it added little value to their teaching. Values, in
particular, impact what individuals adopt as an action plan, and, therefore, can determine
whether or not a teacher will choose to integrate technology into their instruction (Hew & Brush,
2006; Holden & Rada, 2011). Teacher attitudes are also impacted by self-efficacy and
motivation, which will be further investigated.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 31

Self-efficacy suggests how individuals feel about their capabilities (Pajares, 2003).
Teachers’ technology self-efficacy is linked to their perceptions regarding the use and ease of
integrating technology strategies in the classroom (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-eftwich, Sadik, Sendurur,
and Sendurur, 2012). Holdan and Rada (2011) found high correlations between the ease of
technology and the use of technology indicating the more teacher-friendly a program or tool, the
more likely they were to be integrated into the classroom. A similar finding was revealed in
Ertmer et al.’s study (2012) that found the more technological skills a teacher can acquire the
more confident they will become, thus increasing their willingness to try new software and
hardware in the classroom. Confidence with technology use was also shown to support
sustainability of technology integration in the classroom overtime (Ertmer et al., 2012).
Teacher motivation is also influenced by their self-efficacy based on personal technology
aptitude. Motivation is what moves individuals to action and helps sustain goal-oriented
behaviors (Pintrich, 2003). Straub (2009) found that teacher motivation to implement
technology in the classroom was complex and was impacted by both internal and external
factors. Teachers need to have both a clear understanding of the benefits and value of
technology (cognitive beliefs), in addition to support and flexibility (emotional and contextual
concerns) from the school site and/or district, while new technology is being introduced and
implemented in order to be motivated and to sustain technology integration (Straub, 2009).
Furthermore, Ertmer et al. (2012) found that teachers were generally highly motivated by their
personal beliefs about good teaching practices such as collaboration and the need for students to
have choices in their learning tasks, which drove their motivation for utilizing technology as a
vehicle for these methods. Ertmer et al. (2012) is further supported by Davies (2011) who found
“teachers who have technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) use specific
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 32

technology because they understand the pedagogy for teaching specific content and know how
the technology can facilitate accomplishment of the intended learning goal” (p. 50). This is a
reminder for the importance for professional development and time for reflection on new
learning and planning. Collaboration and peer coaching opportunities are critical supports for
developing constructivist pedagogy amongst teachers (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Again, it is
evident in the literature that when teachers can integrate their level of content knowledge,
pedagogical foundations, and technological skill, this is where student engagement and increased
achievement hits the mark (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Davies, 2011; Ertmer et al., 2012).
Professional development. Professionals, including teachers, need to stay apprised of
current research, best practices, and technologies. Sustained professional development provides
teachers with meaningful opportunities to improve their instructional practice and raise student
achievement. A large amount of literature on the general topic of professional development is
available and has identified several indicators of successful professional development: hands-on
opportunities, content or grade-level specific focus, opportunities for both horizontal and vertical
articulation with peers, and interconnected professional development topics of focus which
support overall cohesiveness (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Desimone, 2009; Keengwe &
Onchwari, 2011). Despite knowing these factors, professional development for teachers has long
been negatively impacted by budget limitations and lack of long-range planning and design.
This has resulted in either one-day trainings and workshops, or, worse, no professional
development at all.
Although there is this rush to put technology tools into everyone’s hands, minimal
professional development opportunities are being provided (Machin, McNally, & Silva, 2007).
Technology-focused professional development will be essential if technology integration is
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 33

going to be used to promote learning for all students (Plair, 2008). The technology availability
itself will not support long-term student success. According to Lawless and Pelligrino (2007),
there is significant evidence of poor technology integration practices in the classroom across
curricular activities as a result of teachers not having adequate professional development in
technology. This supports moving beyond the existing training opportunities focused on how to
simply use a new technology tool. Instead, it is argued that the focus needs to be on integrating
technology into teachers’ daily instruction (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Well-designed
professional development plans are promoted along with extensive teacher time to experiment
with programs, collaborate in curriculum planning with colleagues, and implement new practices
in the classroom (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Desimone, 2009; Keengwe & Onchwari,
2011).
Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) further suggest that perhaps a situated professional
development model could benefit teachers in better integrating technology in the classroom in
contrast to attending an in-service training outside the classroom. Situated professional
development includes mentorship and peer coaching support to the teacher. Mentorship and
peer coaching allow for in class modeling, follow-up learning, and feedback, which are highly
valued methods of teacher support (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Through these opportunities
teachers have the ability to learn, improve, and refine their practice as they work with students in
the classroom. Timely feedback is critical for consistent teacher skill development, buy-in, and
increased student impact (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999). More studies are needed to
highlight additional modes of effective professional development for supporting effective
technology integration in the classroom.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 34

Promising practices. As the role of technology in the classroom has expanded,
promising practices for teaching and learning have emerged. According to Lim, Zhao, Tondeur,
Chai, and Tsai (2013), there are a few “success stories” where the teacher is now in a facilitator
role, students more engaged in their own learning processes through the use of technology,
gathering their own information through a variety of resources, and demonstrating more
connections between previous learned concepts and the real world (p. 59). Models or concepts
where these shifts are evident include flipped learning, blended learning, one-to-one computing,
and project based learning.
Flipped learning is a practice where academic content for students is reviewed at home
via teacher created videos and interactive lessons, while skill application takes place in the
classroom (Tucker, 2012). Essentially, this model is attempting to maximize learning time by
providing typical seat instruction activities in advance, allowing class time as an opportunity for
problem solving, discussion, and more increased student collaboration opportunities (November
& Mull, 2012; Tucker, 2012). Flipped learning is also not without its challenges. Key concerns
are student access to the internet at home, teacher capability and skill in developing engaging
instructional videos and interactive lessons, and incorporating accountability activities to ensure
students are previewing content and understanding what they are watching on their own time
(November & Mill, 2012). Nevertheless, this practice seems to provide ample opportunity for
students to be more engaged with their learning, and, if the teacher is conscientious of each
students level of content understanding, more opportunity for individual support and remediation
(November & Mull, 2012; Tucker, 2012).
The blended learning approach allows the ability to incorporate multiple modes of
technology in addition to working in combination with the traditional classroom. Online
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 35

learning has significantly grown over the years from 45,000 students taking online coursework in
2000 to more than 3 million in 2011 (Horn & Staker, 2011). According to Horn and Staker
(2011) there are a variety of models for blended learning, including face-to-face driver (teacher
provides most of the curriculum), rotation (traditional class time and online learning curriculum),
flex (typically for credit recovery), online lab, and online driver (combination of a lead teacher
and online platform). Similar to flipped learning, challenges with blended learning include
student accountability to work independently and pace themselves appropriately, teacher skill,
and curriculum quality (McLester, 2011). Still, blended learning does show promising potential
by providing more avenues for quicker student intervention, increased differentiation
opportunities, and reduced costs in comparison to facility needs of a traditional school (Horn &
Staker, 2011; McLester 2011).
One to one laptop learning programs provide students with a laptop for all of their
coursework and allow the laptop to go home with the student as well (Keengwe, Schnellert, &
Mills, 2011). Schools providing laptop-learning programs have found many benefits for student
learning in doing so. Some of these benefits included more consistent access to diverse sources
of information, increased opportunities for individualized instruction, more in-depth learning,
high student engagement, and stronger student study habits (Cavanaugh, Dawson, & Ritzhaupt,
2011; Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2011). Given that laptops are provided to each student in a
given grade and classroom, one to one learning programs did a high potential for influencing
teaching practices and increasing student achievement (Cavanaugh, Dawson, & Ritzhaupt,
2011). One to one learning programs, however, are not without challenges and are best
implemented when systemic practices are in place. For example, Keengwe, Schnellert, and Mills
(2011) exposed the need for teacher preparation time to plan cohesive lessons integrating
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 36

technology beyond an informational capacity, a need for strong classroom management practices
to keep students focused, more teacher training, and a need for more troubleshooting support and
logistical planning.
Project Based Learning (PBL) is an inquiry-based method of learning for students to
solve real life problems collaboratively by applying research capabilities across content areas
(Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009; Bell, 2010). Through student interest and inquiry, research
questions are developed, and research is conducted emphasizing the use of 21
st
century skills
including technology (Bell, 2010). Many benefits have been found utilizing this approach.
Research shows that through PBL students gain a “greater understanding of a topic, deeper
learning, higher level-reading, and increased motivation o learn” (Bell, 2010, p. 39). Students
become very astute in their technology skills by learning how to be a critical internet user, and
engaging in multiple applications while completing their final projects (Bell, 2010). In studies
reviewed by both Bell (2010) and Strobel and Van Barneveld (2009), students learning through
PBL outperformed students learning within the traditional classroom setting in standardized
achievement assessments across states. Strobel and Van Barneveld (2009) also found that PBL
significantly increased students’ long-term retention of conceptualizations. This approach
appears the most promising given some of technology barriers previously discussed. Students
quickly adapt to the practice, student motivation and engagement is heightened, and one to one
technology access is not required. Professional development for teachers in PBL and time for
planning and monitoring student progress would be critical (Bell, 2010).
Summary
The literature on technology and its impact on teaching and learning is vast, and covers
historical use of innovation, technology’s positive influences on student engagement and
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 37

achievement, barriers to successful implementation, and several promising practices. It is clear,
overall, that technology, when integrated with consistency and high quality, does advance
student learning. However, it is also apparent through the research that strong leadership,
equitable resources and effective professional development practices will be critical for teaching
and learning to play a significant role. In addition, Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Chai, and Tsai (2013)
note, “technology integration is not yet achieved in a systemic or systematic way in most
schools” (p. 65). The search continues for schools that embody shared commitment and vision
for technology integration in the classroom. Given the constant evolution of technology and
innovative best practices integrating technology, this case study will add to the literature a
current lens of the positive impact technology integration in the classroom can have on teaching
and learning for the 21
st
century and the criteria needed for systemic innovation. This qualitative
case study will bring to light best practices found in a current urban high school that can be
replicated in other school settings.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 38

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction
The purpose of this study was to identify the practices that have promoted the use of
technology to transform teaching and learning in a high-performing secondary school. The
review of the literature in the previous chapter provided the history of technology in schools,
positive and negative impacts of technology, barriers, current implications for schools and school
leadership, teacher ideology towards technology integration, and current promising practices.
Research did reveal advances in student learning when technology was integrated consistently
and through high quality instruction. The literature also emphasized the importance of strong
leadership, equitable resources, and effective professional development practices. A significant
concern, however, was technology integration in most of America’s public schools has yet to be
implemented in a systematic way despite an increased emphasis on 21
st
century learning for
students (Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Chai, & Tsai, 2013). However, there are schools providing many
of the essential elements for successful technology integration in the classroom. This chapter
will provide the methodology and the research design used in this thematic qualitative case study
of the instructional best practices that exist at a school where technology integration is positively
impacting teaching and learning as evidenced by increased student achievement outcomes.
The study used qualitative, descriptive research methods to best identify key practices
used in schools to integrate technology in the classroom. Given the constant change of
technology development and use, a qualitative approach is best. It provides an avenue for
exploration of variables that may not be known yet (Creswell, 2009). Furthermore, Creswell
(2009) supports the notion that qualitative methods are appropriate if “a concept or phenomenon
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 39

needs to be understood because little research has been done on it” (p. 18). Such is the case for
technology integration in the classroom, and its impact on teaching and learning.
Research Questions
Research questions were developed that would help determine how schools have been
able to increase student outcomes with the integration of technology in the classroom. The
research questions were developed by a thematic dissertation team of eleven that met over the
course of a year. Upon completion of examining the relevant literature, the team discussed and
identified the key factors that positively impacted technology integration in the classroom. As a
result, three critical areas in relation to teaching and learning were revealed: technology access,
technology’s perceived impact, and school climate and leadership. Therefore, the study
addresses the following research questions:
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
3. In what ways does the school climate and leadership support the integration of
technology?
Conceptual Model
The thematic dissertation team discussed several conceptual frameworks that could be
applied to the study. Initially, the 21st Century Learning Framework assisted in understanding
what teachers themselves perceive as beneficial professional development supports to them in
learning how to successfully integrate technology in their classroom. The 21st Century Learning
Framework emphasizes the skills of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and
creativity, and can be applied to teaching and learning professional development practices for
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 40

technology integration (Bellanca & Brandt, 2010). The team also wanted to take a closer look at
what skills a teacher needed to provide for the sustainability of technology integration in the
classroom, understanding that sustainability provided for the instructional consistency required
to increase student achievement outcomes. Therefore, the primary conceptual model guiding the
study was the TPACK framework of Koehler and Mishra (2009). This model (see Figure 1)
addresses the specific purposes of this study.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model

Figure 1. Conceptual model for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(TPACK). Source: http://tpack.org/

The conceptual model for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
developed by Koehler and Mishra (2009) demonstrates the need for teacher abilities and skill
development to be focused in three interrelated areas: technology, pedagogy, and content.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 41

Technology knowledge provides the teacher the ability to look beyond the technology tool or
program itself and how it can be expanded to classroom and everyday use, a call for creativity
which is imperative given the constant evolution of technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Teachers also need to have a good understanding of their content, whatever subject matter that
may be, as well as a strong understanding of the processes required for student learning and
application which assists teachers in scaffolding instruction appropriately (Koehler & Mishra,
2009). Expertise in and the ability to understand how all three areas- technology, content, and
pedagogy- support and enhance one another are required to foster “the flexible knowledge
needed to successfully integrate technology use into teaching” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 60).
Research Design
The study utilized a qualitative case study design in order to adequately apply the
TPACK framework to assist in unveiling the best practices used in schools integrating
technology successfully as evidenced by increased student achievement outcomes based on 21
st

century learning skills. A case study design is an opportunity for an “in-depth study of instances
of a phenomenon in its natural context and from the perspective of the participants involved in
the phenomenon” (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003, p. 436). Moreover, case study design allows for
descriptive data to be collected of the phenomena and potential explanations of perceived
patterns and trends to be presented (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).
This qualitative case study design guided the methodology and identified research
methods to study a school’s best practices, strategies and overall success in teaching and learning
with technology. According to Gall, Gall, and Borg (2003), there are several characteristics to a
qualitative case study research, but “a good case study brings phenomenon to life for the reader.”
The phenomenon in this case was a school’s ability to integrate technology in the classroom with
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 42

clear impact on teaching and learning. Qualitative case study approach allowed for the collected
data to bring to life the intricacies within a school’s success, and assisted in identifying best
practices to be shared with other potential schools.
As previously mentioned, the thematic dissertation team consisted of eleven doctoral
candidates from the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education. The team
was under the guidance of dissertation chair, Dr. Stuart Gothold. The group met monthly from
August 2013 to January 2015 to collaborate and formulate the research design for the case study.
Each member chose a school that met a minimum five out of seven criterion developed by the
team. Each member of the dissertation team chose his or her own school, and research was
collected and analyzed individually. The criteria for a school in the case study was established
and included the following:
• High Performing (Similar Schools Ranking/API 700+)
• Structured Technology Plan
• Mission Statement with Technology Vision
• Evidence of a Promising Research-based Practice in Technology
• K-12 School Size of 400 students minimum (Urban/Suburban)
• Established Recognition (Apple Distinguished, California Distinguished School)
• Competitive Grant/Funding Purpose
Population and Sample
For this thematic dissertation, each case study focused on a school that
demonstrates effective integration of technology on teaching and learning. The school chosen
for this case study was Innovation High School as it met most of the criterion established by the
thematic dissertation team. Innovation High School is a grades 9-12 traditional urban high
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 43

school in northern California, with an enrollment of 408 students. Of these students, 2% are
African/American, 1.3% are American Indian or Alaska Native, 2% are Asian, 1.8% are Filipino,
40.3% are Hispanic/Latino, 0.5% are Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 46.1% are White.
Furthermore, 32.2% of the students are classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged, 14.7%
are classified as English Learners, and 4.6% are students with disabilities. Students at
Innovation High School are served by one full-time and one part-time administrator, sixteen fully
credentialed, full- time teachers, and two part time fully credentialed teachers. Innovation High
School support staff includes two full-time clerical staff, one counselor, a part time network
manager, and one full-time and one half- time custodians.
Innovation High School has an Academic Performance Index (API) of 797 for 2013, with
a Similar Schools rank of 4 in 2012. Despite a high API of 797, Innovation High School is a
school under Program Improvement (PI). The school did not meet all of its AYP targets for a
second year in a row in 2006-2007, consequently entering stage 1 of 5 of program improvement
(PI) under NCLB. The school has remained as a PI school and is in year 3 of the program
currently. Subsequently, the school only reached 7 of the 10 AYP targets in 2013. According to
the state accountability measures, the school did decrease 44 points in API going to 797 from
841 in 2012.
A major factor that deemed Innovation High School worthy for this case study was that it
is a technology focused school maintaining a 1:1 computer ratio for students. The mission of
Innovation High School is “to prepare students to successfully compete in an information-based,
technologically advanced society.” The school is based on several core principles, which include
project-based learning, extensive collaboration opportunities for students and teachers alike, and
the targeted use of technology as a tool for student learning and increased productivity.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 44

Innovation High School has also established partnerships that serve to sustain technology
integration in the school and to provide student and teacher led service support in its surrounding
community. Multi-faceted professional development opportunities are also available for teachers
allowing them to provide opportunities for their students to discover and develop their own
technological skills and talents through project based learning and the culminating development
of a digital portfolio their senior year. Therefore, the school’s commitment to technology and
innovation was evident, and the various data collection instruments provided the necessary
information to create a qualitative narrative for this case study. In addition, based on the lower
academic performance, it will be noteworthy to see if teaching and learning looks any different
in this school in comparison to higher performing schools.
Instrumentation
The use of multiple forms of data or triangulation was used to validate the results of the
study. In keeping with the goal of data triangulation, research instruments were designed to
support confirmation of the findings (Creswell, 2003). They were also developed to obtain
different information and limit redundancy. This study used the following forms of multiple
data: document analysis, surveys, interviews and observations.
The research instruments were developed by the parallel dissertation team, and were
supported by findings in the current research literature. The team determined that the following
documents (Appendix A) should be reviewed to provide an overview of the school setting and to
understand the following specific information:
• School and district Website information was reviewed prior to visiting the school to give
an overview of the specific school being studied.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 45

• Student data, demographic information, and teacher information was reviewed to learn
about student achievement, subgroup achievement and the qualifications of staff.
• District Local Control Accountability Plan, Common Core Plan, Technology Plan, and
school site budget were examined to verify allocations provided for technology hardware,
software, and professional development.
• School publications, school and district policies were reviewed to validate the school and
district values, priorities, and areas of concern.
• The school’s WASC accreditation report, School Accountability Report Card, and Single
plan for Student Achievement were reviewed to determine where the school was being
successful and where they were addressing areas of need.
• Staff Handbook, district and school professional development plans, and computer lab
and/or mobile cart checkout sheets were reviewed to explore professional development
planning and technology use in the school.
The teacher survey and interview protocols (Appendices B and C) were
developed to gain the teacher’s perspective of technology integration and support at the school
site. The survey consists of 20 questions divided into the following areas: personal
demographics, technology access, technology policies, and technology and instruction. Two
interview protocols were developed: one for the teachers and one for the administrators. The
protocols were developed from the research questions for the study. Each interview consists of
15 questions or less. According to Merriam (2009), interviews provide the researcher with
information that cannot be observed such as individual feelings and interpretation of the
phenomena around them. Therefore, the interview questions were designed as open-ended
responses to give the participant flexibility in their responses.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 46

The observation protocol (Appendix D) was developed to assist the researcher in
organizing information collected during observations. In addition, the information collected in
the protocol was used to validate other data obtained through interviews and questionnaires
(Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). The categories in the template focus on the classroom
environment, technology tools available, their use, and by whom, as well as technology
integration in the actual lesson.
Data Collection
Data collection took place at Innovation High School over a period of eight weeks. The
researcher was the sole instrument of data collection. The researcher began with website review
of high school and district information pertinent to the study. Websites visited included:
• Innovation High School website
• Innovation’s Unified School District website
• California Department of Education Accountability Progress Reporting webpage:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ar/
• California Department of Education DataQuest webpage:
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
The website review was followed with a document analysis, which included collection of the
previously mentioned documents:
• District Local Control Accountability Plan, Common Core Plan, Technology Plan, and
school site budget were examined to verify allocations provided for technology hardware,
software, and professional development.
• School publications, school and district policies were reviewed to validate the school and
district values, priorities, and areas of concern.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 47

• The school’s WASC accreditation report, School Accountability Report Card, and Single
plan for Student Achievement were reviewed to determine where the school was being
successful and where they were addressing areas of need.
• School professional development plans, schedules, and staff meeting minutes were
reviewed to explore professional development planning and technology use in the school.
Following a complete document review, online surveys were emailed to all teachers and
collected in November 2014. Surveys allow the researcher the ability to “collect information
from or about people to describe, compare, or explain their knowledge, feelings, values, and
behavior” (Fink, 2013, p.1). Survey data was automatically entered into a database. Descriptive
statistics were then used to describe the sample and their responses. Data was recorded in
numbers and percentages to allow for comparison and identification of any relationships.
Teacher and administrator interviews were conducted in October and November of 2014.
One administrator interview, one academic specialist interview, two teacher interviews, and one
support staff interview were completed during this time. The researcher digitally recorded all
interviews with consent from the participants. There were also no sensitive questions that would
inhibit the researcher from doing so (Merriam, 2009), and appropriate consent was garnered per
IRB regulations. Each interview was conducted either before school or during a lunch period in
the teacher’s classroom or administrator’s office. The classroom location gave the researcher a
sense of the learning environment and technology tools at their disposal for student instruction,
and helped validate their selection as an interviewee (Merriam, 2009; Mawell, 2013). The
researcher also took field notes regarding interviewee responses using the interview protocol
form developed by the dissertation team. Following each interview, the researcher did quick
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 48

reflections regarding the interview itself. Interviews were transcribed by an outside source, and
all handwritten notes were typed by the researcher and stored.
Classroom observations were also completed in the months of October and November
2014. Extensive field notes utilizing the observation protocol form were captured during the
three classroom observation opportunities. Utilizing both descriptive and reflective notes on the
physical setting, participants involved, and interactions allowed the researcher to get both a
broad view of the professional development structure for supporting technology integration in
the classroom, and provided the researcher the ability to narrow the focus on specific comments
and body language which helped capture teacher perceptions (Bogden & Biklen, 2007). All
notes were typed by the researcher and stored. Following the observations, cookie trays were
sent to the staff as a gift of appreciation, recalling Maxwell’s (2013) “thank you” guidance.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are critical considerations in a qualitative study. Validity refers to
the extent to which the case study appropriately aligns to the criterion established in the study
(Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Reliability is dependent upon similar findings other researchers
would gain using the same procedures utilized by the initial researcher (Gall, Gall, & Borg,
2003). The validity and reliability of this study was assured through the depth of the dissertation
team’s review of current research and use of common instruments across eleven schools. The
following strategies, as suggested by Maxwell (2013), were also incorporated to further support
validity and reliability: intensive involvement with the case study, rich, descriptive data
collection, triangulation, and number of eleven case studies for comparison and accuracy. For
example, the process of triangulation assisted the researcher in interpreting the data and checking
for validity (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher could cross-reference what was said and/or implied
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 49

during interviews with the data collected through surveys, document analysis, and during
observations.
Data Analysis
According to Merriam (2009), “data analysis is the process of making sense of the data”
(p.175). There were four instruments used to gather data for the study: document analysis,
survey protocol, interview protocol, and observation protocol forms (see Appendices A-D).
Creswell’s (2009) six steps for data analysis and interpretation were utilized accordingly:
1. The researcher organized and prepared the data for analysis, including transcribing
interviews, and typing up field notes.
2. The researcher read through all of the data to begin to reflection on its depth,
credibility, and meaning.
3. The researcher coded the data and began to categorize data by commonalities.
4. The researcher described the school and individuals involve din the data collection
process, and sorted coded data by themes for further analysis.
5. The researcher finalized the identified themes for a descriptive narrative.
6. Upon completion of examination of all the data, the researcher will make meaning of
the emergent themes.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical guidelines established by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) were adhered to as
this was conducted. In attempt to ensure credibility of the process, the researcher held a neutral
stance throughout the data collection and analysis process. For instance, the researcher reviewed
content based on fact, not personal opinion. Personal bias can become an ethical issue for
researchers according to Merriam (2009). Nevertheless, the use of developing themes supported
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 50

through the triangulation process helped maintain the integrity of the process (Maxwell, 2013).
In addition, no harm was caused to any of the participants of the case study. To maintain
confidentiality, the researcher kept all information gathered through the dissertation process
private and secure at all times.
Summary
The primary objective of this chapter was to describe the methodology implemented for
the qualitative case study. In that effort, descriptions of the research questions, research design,
conceptual model, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis methods were provided.
Current qualitative research and methodology were utilized to explore Innovation High School’s
ability to integrate technology in the classroom and examine the technology practices’ effect on
teaching and learning. Chapter Four of the dissertation will include an analysis of the major
findings of the study with the data gathered from the document analysis, survey results,
interviews, and observation field notes.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 51

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Classroom instruction in California is currently undergoing a significant shift as teachers
grapple with implementing the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Although the CCSS
were adopted in 2010, the earlier years were spent on building awareness and supports for
transition to the new framework’s instructional expectations and student outcomes. It is now in
the 2014-15 school year that the CCSS are to be fully implemented in grades Kindergarten
through twelfth grade. A key outcome for students in the new framework is to demonstrate
college and career readiness for the 21
st
century. An assumed avenue for building 21
st
century
competencies, such as critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity, is
technology. This is further supported with the new online assessments students will now be
completing statewide. Therefore, it becomes critical to review the impact technology can have
on teaching and learning. It is imperative for educators to create innovative learning
environments which take full advantage of the resources students will be expected to access in
careers that may not even exist yet. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the practices
that have promoted the use of technology to transform teaching and learning in a high-
performing secondary school.
The first three chapters of this dissertation addressed the problem and the
significance of the study, a review of the literature related to the problem, and the methodology
and design used to study the selected school site. This chapter will discuss the findings from the
case study of Innovation High School. Finally, the chapter will further provide an in depth
analysis of the findings for each research question as well as provide a discussion of the
emerging themes.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 52

Research Questions
Research questions were developed that would assist in determining how schools have
been able to increase student outcomes with the integration of technology in the classroom. A
thematic dissertation team of eleven met over the course of a year and developed the research
design and questions. Upon completion of examining the relevant literature, the team discussed
and identified the key factors that positively impacted technology integration in the classroom.
As a result, three critical areas in relation to teaching and learning were revealed: technology
access, technology’s perceived impact, and school climate and leadership. Therefore, the study
addresses the following three research questions:
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
3. In what ways does the school climate and leadership support the integration of
technology?
Methodology
Data collection took place at Innovation High School over a period of five months, which
included six days on site. The researcher was the sole instrument of data collection. The data
collection was primarily qualitative, with some quantitative data. The data collection analyzed
included various documents, such as the school’s Western Association of Schools and Colleges
(WASC) report, Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), the most recent School
Accountability Report Card (SARC), staff development schedules, leadership team minutes, and
the school website. In addition, teacher surveys, interviews, and observations were also
gathered. As the data was collected, the researcher reviewed each piece of data using Creswell’s
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 53

(2009) six steps for data analysis and interpretation. The process of coding was utilized to assist
in triangulating the data to assure consistency, highlight emerging themes, and ensure validity
and reliability of the data.
The researcher collected the documents reviewed through email correspondence with the
school’s academic specialist. The teacher survey was emailed to the staff, and 13 surveys were
completed. The survey results represented 68% of the teaching staff. The researcher also
visited the school on two occasions for three consecutive days during each visit to gain a broader
perspective of the school climate and classroom instruction. During these visits, five formal
interviews were conducted including one with the assistant principal, one with the academic
specialist, two with classroom teachers, and one with the Latino community liaison. Each
voluntary participant signed a release and also gave permission to be recorded. The community
liaison was not a pre-scheduled interview. Given the school culture, which will be further
discussed in this chapter, it was clear that the support staff contributed greatly to the school
climate and support of technology integration. Therefore, the researcher used a combination of
questions from the teacher and administrator interview protocols to gain further insight from the
Latino community liaison and the influences of technology on teaching and learning.
In addition, five formal classroom observations were also conducted over a two-month
period. Three informal interviews occurred during classroom observations at which the
participants gave the researcher voluntary commentary that was valuable to the case study.

Informal observations also
took place of the school campus, student hub, various classrooms, and
neighboring school community. The data collected was sufficient for triangulation and
validation of the case study findings.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 54

Background of Innovation High School
Innovation High School is located in the wine country region, 55 miles north of the San
Francisco Bay. The community has a population of about 80,000. The city’s major sources of
income are derived from the tourist trade, real estate, light industry, hospitality and, of course,
the wine industry. The local community has evolved over the years from a rural to a more
“commuter” community. Nevertheless, it very much retains a small town feel, which is evident
throughout the community. Generations of family members continue to own and operate local
business.
In 1996, Innovation High School opened its doors to eleventh and twelfth grade students.
The development of the school was strongly supported by the local business community eager to
support student learning that would provide highly skilled future employees. Key areas of focus
in this development process were the integration of collaboration (amongst students, teachers,
and community) and technology. Innovation High School has received several recognitions since
its inceptions including California Distinguished School and an “Exemplary Demonstration Site”
for a national network of technology enriched schools. Most recently, in December 2014, the
school was selected as a national filming site for instructional videos based on their exemplary
instructional practices in Project-Based Learning for this network.
Innovation High School is a school of choice that now serves students in grades nine
through twelve from more than ten high schools in the surrounding four counties. Students apply
for admission and are selected based on a lottery system. The school prides itself on being
designed to serve the “academically average” student, who successfully meets student outcomes
through their integrated and collaborative approach. Beyond the District’s high school
requirements, Innovation High School students must also complete the following:
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 55

• A minimum of four UC/CSU transferable college classes
• Ten hours of school service, twenty hours of community service, and fifty hours of a
professional internship in a work environment
• One additional year of college-prep mathematics (three years total)
• One year of Digital Media I, mastering all competencies
• A comprehensive digital graduation portfolio
• Senior project (highly recommended)
Innovation High School currently enrolls students at grades 9 through 12, with a total enrollment
of 408. Parents are asked to volunteer 15 or more hours per year per family. The population
served by the school represents a diversity of ethnic groups, with predominant Caucasian (44%)
and Hispanic (39%) students. Approximately 32 percent of the students qualify for the free-and-
reduced lunch program and are socio-economically disadvantaged.
Innovation High School’s mission is “to inspire students to be responsible, resilient, and
personally successful in the rapidly changing 21st century, and to be a student-centered model
for educational innovation.” Community relationships, a partnership with a local network
affiliate, and a national network organization have helped support technology integration and
meaningful staff development to ensure the continued success of their instructional program.
Gaining Entry
Prior to visiting the site, the researcher emailed and had several phone conversations with
the Director of Research for the national network regarding the nature of the case study and the
school criterion. The national network of schools is a nonprofit organization that evolved
through the foundation established during Innovation High School’s inception. The network
now supports schools across the nation in transforming their learning environments that foster
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 56

innovation and collaboration through project-based learning. Upon approval from the director,
the researcher was then able to make contact with the school principal. Introductions with the
school principal were made on June 10, 2014, and data collection began for document review
through email exchange. Then, on September 9, 2014, the Director of Research informed the
researcher that the school principal had left the school for a promotional opportunity in another
school district. An interim principal was placed at Innovation High School temporarily. It was
determined that the school’s academic specialist would be the main point of contact for the
researcher. A virtual introduction was made between the two parties on September 29, 2014.
First Visitation at the School Site
On the crisp, fall morning of October 15, 2014, at approximately 7:38 a.m., the researcher
arrived on the Innovation High School campus. Upon initial observation of the facilities, it was
clear this campus was unique given it operated on a solar panel system. The parking lot was a
renewable energy structure, and even included fuel-efficient vehicle parking. Walking into the
front door, the main campus building was a buzz of energy. As a visitor enters, you are
immediately on a pathway leading to the cyber café or “hub” of campus. The hub is a large,
open area with a high ceiling, and several counters, round tables, and chairs. Students and a few
teachers are gathered in various areas chatting about projects, upcoming assignments, and what
they did over the long weekend. The researcher is greeted warmly by the community liaison,
and is checked into the front office for identification, signature, and a pass. Upon check-in, the
researcher is led through the hub and out the back of the building through a bright, green space
outdoors that reveals a native plant garden and a large rainwater receptacle. There are additional
bungalow-style classrooms in this area where the researcher is taken.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 57

The researcher having arrived early that morning had an opportunity to speak with the
academic specialist at this point. The researcher learned in 2009, the school had been selected
for facility renovation and expansion to create a sustainable school that integrated facility space
and student learning. The project’s mission was to create “a school as a teaching tool.” The
construction project was funded through bond and state modernization eligibility dollars, and
completed in 2010. The final product now portrayed a modern high school structure, expansive
greenery, art and drama labs, team teaching labs, a cyber café, outdoor learning areas, and even a
rainwater garden. Environmental signage explaining water efficiency, materials and resources,
energy and atmosphere, etc. could be found throughout the hallways of the campus as well. It
was evident that the entire campus, indoors and outdoors, were fully maximized by the staff and
students. Local community members were also visibly using the surrounding park space as well.
The researcher had noticed a few mothers gathered with their coffee in the early morning as their
young toddlers played in the park area of the school.
On this day, the researcher had the good fortune to participate in one of Innovation High
School’s scheduled study tours. Half-day study tours are available to educators interested in
learning about Innovation High School, the national network, and the school’s curriculum
program. During this tour, the researcher was joined by a group of enthusiastic educators
visiting from Brazil and a district administrator from another Northern California school district.
The study tour served as an opportunity for the researcher and other tour participants to learn
more about the school’s history, curriculum framework, and student outcomes. The tour was
facilitated by the school’s academic specialist, and included an overview of the national
network’s school model, a student-led tour of the campus, classroom visitations, and a student
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 58

panel discussion. In addition to study tours, weekly one-hour student-led tours are also available
for prospective parents and students.
The academic specialist described Innovation High School as fostering “a culture that
empowers students.” He explained there were no bell schedules and that the school community
worked diligently to try to foster a comfortable and safe space for students. This was supported
by a team teaching approach built on a project-based learning design. The academic specialist
further explained teaching expectations emphasized student engagement, and technology was
purposefully used to assist and support the learning and teaching. As the group walked the
campus, it was evident from the start this high school was a special place, and not your typical
high school. Although there were typical components of a high school, such as a main office,
classrooms, a quad, etc., everything was reconfigured in a non-traditional manner. An initial
example of this was the classrooms or rather “learning labs” throughout the campus. The
classroom furniture was placed in groupings that allowed for collaboration. There were also
copious amounts of display space for student work. Classrooms were large enough to support a
team of two teachers and about 40 students. Social Studies and English Language Arts teachers
were a common pairing. Another interesting partnership was between the Biology and Health or
Physical Education teachers, focusing on the concepts of physiology with students.
As the academic specialist shared, there was no starting bell or bells between periods.
Students moved from class to class as needed. Daily schedules were posted in the hub, more as a
resource for visitors than the students. The assistant principal monitored the hub and hallways to
ensure all students were moving along to their classes. As we visited classrooms, technology
resources were visible. All classrooms were equipped with promethean boards, and several of
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 59

the teachers were observed reviewing past assignments or current class projects posted on a
student learning management system utilized by all the national network schools.
As students engaged in class and during the break with one another and staff members,
comfort and trust with one another was clear. There was informal banter between teacher and
student in the hallways, teachers shared the hub with students for break and lunch, and students
openly joked and questioned the teaching staff. There was a concerted effort by the staff to teach
student responsibility and treat them as young adults. During the student panel discussion that
morning, the students were overheard sharing with the study tour participants how much the
school community was like a family, and how those relationships with their teachers had helped
them be more confident and critical of their own work and learning. Indeed, this was a special
place.
Findings by Research Questions
Research Question One
What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom? In an effort to determine how much technology is available and how it is used in the
classroom, the researcher first conducted a document analysis. Although Innovation High
School does not have a specific technology plan, the importance of technology as an essential
component to student learning is embedded in their philosophy as reflective in all existing school
documents reviewed. For example, Innovation High School’s mission statement found on their
website validates the importance of 21
st
century learning for their students. It states: “Our
mission is to inspire students to be responsible, resilient, and personally successful in the rapidly
changing 21st century, and to be a student-centered model for educational innovation.” As a
result, the researcher discovered one of the school-wide learning outcomes for students is
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 60

specifically technology and information literacy. Innovation High School has six additional
student learning outcomes listed in their Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA)
encompassing their goal to prepare students for a rapidly changing environment. These student
outcomes include the following: content literacy, work ethic and professionalism, written
communication, collaboration, critical thinking and logical reasoning, and oral communication.
All seven outcomes are addressed in each course offering a student takes at Innovation High
School, and is the basis for their grades reflective on the student gradebook.
Innovation High School Students, as previously shared, have several technology-related
high school graduation requirements. The first requirement is each student must complete and
pass the “Digital Media Design and Criticism” course. Most students complete this course their
freshmen year. It ensures that all students entering Innovation High School develops essential
computer literacy skills for their work at Innovation High School and afterwards. Students learn
the basics of Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere Pro and Illustrator, audio creation, video
creation, and animation. Second, all students gain access to the online learning management
system. This platform is utilized in each class and provides students a place to access
assignments, course syllabi, communicate with their teachers, and allows students to monitor
their own learning goals and transcript progress. Parents have accounts to this online system as
well. Third, all students must continuously work on a digital portfolio during their time at
Innovation High School that is then submitted their senior year. It reflects their learning
experiences and technology capacity during their tenure at Innovation High School. Finally,
students must also complete a 50-hour internship in the areas of business, education, nonprofit,
or technology. This provides them an opportunity to apply their knowledge and skills learned at
Innovation High School in a real-world setting.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 61

As evidenced through professional development schedules, faculty meeting minutes, and
the WASC Report, it was clear the staff made concerted effort to ensure school-wide fidelity to
the technology expectations. The on-going training of the online learning management system,
continual brainstorming of how to leverage the use of this system within each classroom, and
discussion on how to enhance the digital portfolio experience for students demonstrated these
efforts. The data analysis also reflected ongoing conversations were being held on how the
digital portfolio could be improved so that it is a more current reflection of students’ 21
st
century
competencies. In addition, the school’s WASC report identified a school goal to better train
parents on navigating the online system through the parent portal so that they could be stronger
advocates for their student and their student’s academic progress. In addition, there were staff
discussions reflected in the minutes on using a common format within the online learning
management system course syllabus and assignment sections to better support student familiarity
and usage of the system.
Along with document analysis, the researcher also used survey, interview, and observation
records for triangulation of the data. As this data was reviewed, technology was clearly
accessible throughout the campus. Survey data emphasized internet/Wi-Fi access was readily
available throughout the campus. The researcher noted during campus walks that each learning
lab was equipped with a Promethean board and student response devices. The digital media labs
were equipped with 30+ desktop computers. Survey data also reflected teacher and student
access to printers, scanners, and ELMO projectors.
In addition, Innovation High School has a 1:1 computer to student ratio. This is
maintained through a Bring Your Own Device policy, although there are also available laptops
for students lacking one or when their personal laptop needs repair and a spare is needed. During
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 62

the interview with the academic specialist, it was shared when Innovation High School first
opened its doors, the school provided 1:1 computing with desktops which proved to be
problematic, not just fiscally in terms of updating, but also with student ability to be more mobile
for collaborative work. This was further substantiated in the teacher interviews. As one teacher
explained,
When we first opened…we had stand-alone computers and so it was like a computer
station in the classroom. I found that to be more distracting than students having their
own computers. Everyone had to take turns, and the structure gave the computers more
attention than they needed. Now, with everyone being allowed to bring their own laptop,
technology is a general tool everyone just uses, and isn’t such a focus separate from the
instruction happening in the classroom.

As the staff found laptops to be more accommodating for instructional purposes, the BYOD
policy became a natural transition. It was shared that the students have the option to bring any
device they prefer, such as MacBooks, Chromebooks, and PC Laptops, however, basic
specifications are provided and tablets are discouraged. The onsite IT administrator is available
to assist students with any software required or technical issues they or the teachers may be
having with any equipment.
The assistant principal shared his philosophy of “learning by doing” when it comes to
technology. He and the academic specialist have supported teachers in utilizing Google Drive
for their work as well as for student collaboration opportunities. The assistant principal further
explained that although there is the one specific learning outcome related to technology all seven
learning outcomes incorporate technology use as an instructional tool. For example, he shared
the collaboration outcome could be assessed based on a digital collaboration in Google Drive or
on a discussion board about the class lecture that day. Further, the critical thinking outcome
could be demonstrated through the use of a tablet to debrief an article the students had read.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 63

Incorporating technology in these ways he further expressed were a part of the school culture and
“just an expectation.”
Teachers also corroborated their use of technology as a tool versus an end product itself
during the researcher’s survey analysis, interviews and classroom observations. In the teacher
survey, 92% shared that they incorporated technology into their daily lessons either always or
most of the time. Teachers revealed a variety of ways technology was integrated in the
classroom. Class agendas were online, assignments submitted digitally, application software
such as Subtext and Turnitin were utilized, as well as online resources like the online learning
management system, Google Drive, Google Classroom, Adobe, Photo Shop, Microsoft Office,
and NoodleTools to name a few. Students were also observed to heavily use Google Drive and
the online learning management system to work on collaborative assignments across content
areas. Power point presentations and use of Prezi were prevalent. Projection spaces, whether it
is a Promethean Board, white screen or white boards were readily available in numerous
locations in the classrooms and the hub for impromptu presentation needs.
Given the pervasiveness of technology use on campus, informal technology etiquette was also
observed in the classrooms. Typically, student laptops were on and open. During a lecture or
class discussion, students had the option to note-take on their laptop or in a notebook. When
teachers wanted students to focus on their lecture component or give full attention to their peer
presentations, students were asked to either put their laptops on “courtesy mode” which meant
closed or at a “45 degree angle.” The school is also paperless, and student assignments are given
and submitted online. This includes staff curriculum planning and professional learning tasks.
Aside from charting, shared ideas for brainstorming, products are developed and shared online.
The researcher had the opportunity to even hear the interim principal apologize for distributing a
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 64

half sheet of paper to the staff during a faculty meeting, stating she was still acclimating herself
with Google Drive. Tables 1, 2, and 3 are representative of the responses related to the first
research question.
Table 1
Survey Results for Research Question One – Part 1
Survey Question Open-ended Responses
5. What technology hardware do
you have in your classroom?
(computer, student tablets,
Smartboard, etc.).
One-to-one student laptop computers, teacher laptops,
iPads, desktops, Promethean Board, LCD projectors
with interactive technology, Apple TV, flip cam,
document cameras, graphing calculators, printers, 3D
printers, microscope cameras, scanners, TV/VCR

6. What technology software is
available for classroom use?
(Haiku, programs or learning
applications, etc.)
Echo (online grading, attendance, student
information, parent reporting), GoogleDrive,
Discovery videos, Microsoft Office Suite, TurnItIn,
Google Tools, Socrative, Powtoons, Educreations,
Sphere, Kahoot, Remind 101, various electronic
libraries, Adobe, Garage Band, Logic Pro, Prezi, Test
Generators, Mathbits.com, Khan Academy

Table 2
Survey Results for Research Question One – Part 2
Survey Statement 0-1 years 2-3 years 4-5 years 5+ years
9. I have been integrating
technology into my daily lessons
for…
16
7.7%
20
15.4%
12
15.9%
25
61.5%

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 65

Table 3
Survey Results for Research Question One – Part 3
Survey Question
Significantly
enhanced
teaching
Somewhat
improved
teachers’ ability
to instruct and
manage
Slightly
negative
impact on
the teaching
profession
Proved
subversive to
the abilities
and missions
of teachers
19. Technology has impacted
teaching in what way?
42
46.1%
28
46.1%
2
7.7%
0
0.0%

Summary of Findings for Research Question One
At Innovation High School, there is a clear commitment and expectation for technology
integration throughout the school community. It is important to note that this vision and
expectation of preparing students for the 21
st
century was established from the inception of the
school’s opening in 1996, well before California’s adoption of the Common Core Standards in
2010 and the nation’s focus of preparing students for both college and career, and has been
sustained. This is definitely a source of pride for the school and was expressed in interviews and
during classroom observations by the staff. For instance, when interviewing both the academic
specialist and the assistant principal, each emphasized technology as a critical instructional tool,
and a definite enhancement for teaching and learning.
Despite completion of early grant funds and decreasing school budgets over the years,
Innovation High School problem-solved by implementing a BYOD policy and focusing on
existing online resources. The school district has also continued to support the staff with an
onsite IT support staff member, which is highly beneficial. The online learning management
system and Google Drive have also provided common platforms to assist with staff and student
digital collaboration and communication. Technology was evident and integrated seamlessly into
instruction. In fact, the use of technology was so prevalent, during interviews staff members
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 66

were a bit surprised when asked explicitly about technology access and its use for instruction. It
was clear technology integration was not a specific topic of focus, but as often shared an
assumption and expectation that technology would be used as an instructional tool for teachers
and students alike. Through teacher survey data, teachers demonstrated this mentality by
indicating various ways technology integration occurred inside and outside the classroom, such
as through assignments given and received via student portal, online research, presentation, etc.
Research Question Two
What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning? When
considering the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning, the researcher first
reviewed student achievement results evident in the data collection. Innovation High School’s
School Profile Fact Sheet for 2014-15 featured the following highlights:
• Graduate from high school at rate of 14% higher than national average
• Enroll in college at rate of 9% higher than national average with 42% enrolling in a four
year college and 31% enrolling in a two year college
• Persist in college at a rate of 83% with 91% at a four year college and 71% at a two year
college
• Grow 77% more in higher order thinking skills between their freshman and senior year
than a comparison group
The school’s WASC report provided exit survey data given to the senior class of 2013, total
senior enrollment of 74 students. The seniors were asked whether Innovation High School
provided them with a strong foundation in technology, and 74% strongly agreed and 26% agreed.
In reviewing Innovation High School’s Academic Progress Indicator (API) data, the
school has held an API above 800 since 2008. It progressively increased over the years to an
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 67

API of 841 for the 2011-12 school year. There was a significant decline in 2013 to an API of
797. The report explained that Innovation High School was shifting their instructional direction
that school year by implementing the Common Core State Standards. In addition, ten percent of
the student testing population received the lowest score in science or math because they were not
enrolled in those courses due to their personal schedules or the high school’s requirements.
Nevertheless, the school’s API increased once again to 814 in 2014, an indication of the school
staff addressing any identified instructional issues from the previous school year. Through
observations, it was clear teachers at Innovation High School reviewed student data on a
consistent basis, and had ongoing conversations regarding student strengths and deficiencies in
meeting various learning targets. Teachers met in professional learning communities to devise
action plans to address any areas of concern.
The researcher continued to ascertain the perceived impact technology had on teaching
and learning through teacher surveys. Tables 4 and 5 are representative of the responses related
to the second research question.
Table 4
Survey Results for Research Question Two – Part 1
Survey Statement Absolutely
For the
most part Somewhat
Not at
all
10. I believe that technology
has positively impacted the
quality of my instruction.
7 5 1 0
17. I believe that technology
is relevant for both student
engagement and student
achievement.
4 7 2 0
18. The school’s investment
in technology has proven
worth its cost.
4 7 2 0

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 68

Table 5
Survey Results for Research Question Two – Part 2
Survey Statement Never Sometimes
Most of
the time Always
15. I believe that technology
positively impacts student
creativity.
0 6 5 2
16. I believe that technology
integration requires student
collaboration
0 6 5 2

The survey results reveal that 92% of teachers overwhelmingly believe that technology has
positively impacted the quality of their instruction. In addition, 92% further feel technology has
either significantly enhanced or somewhat improved their ability to teach and manage their
classroom. Therefore, 84% of the teachers felt that the investment made in technology has been
worthwhile. These figures are critical in substantiating the potential impact of technology on
teaching and learning, and the value and benefits the staff of Innovation High School may place
on technology as an instructional tool.
To further delve into the perceived impact technology has on teaching and learning, the
researcher triangulated the data with interviews and observations. It was evident in speaking
with the various staff members, technology was viewed positively, and thought of as having a
significant impact on teaching and learning. On numerous occasions, it was explained to the
researcher how technology is an absolute assistance to teaching and learning. For example, it
was stated, “Just knowing how to use technology and knowing how to be information literate,
and knowing how to Google information appropriately, and how to evaluate sources is huge for
both teachers and students.” Efforts to be interconnected via the online learning management
system or Google Drive were observable across the campus, inside and outside the classrooms.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 69

One teacher shared that the use of technology had replaced a significant amount of procedural
instruction in their classroom. This efficiency allowed for more opportunity in class to be spent
on collaborative problem solving needed in a project-based learning environment.
Given Innovation High School has a project-based learning curriculum framework; this
structure also lent to the staff attitudes that technology was an integral enhancement for
instruction and student learning. Project-based learning is a pedagogical approach focused on
teaching by engaging students in investigation. Several of the staff shared that research was a
constant for students in which the internet served as a productive tool. One teacher noted, “ We
try to have [the students] research and teach each other…then present what they have found.”
The researcher had the opportunity to observe students participating in the Interactive Media 1
course giving their final presentations. They had been assigned to groups, and worked
collaboratively to explore an app or software program that would provide beneficial service to a
potential business. The final presentation was delivered by the team with a power point or Prezi
to a public audience that included local business members who asked questions about their
recommendations. The groups had explored different apps or software that utilized augmented
reality. One team for example, reviewed the IKEA application that allows the homeowner to
create 3D visuals of their living room, for instance, filled with IKEA furniture to get a sense of
what the items would look like in their home.
Classroom observations validated a constructivist model of learning at Innovation High
School that expanded beyond the positive impact of technology to also include the importance of
students working collaboratively and critically with one another. An excellent reflection of this
perspective was observed in one of the classrooms. The teacher had received a 3D printer and
was unfamiliar with the set-up and use of the tool. Rather than spending hours trying to figure it
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 70

out individually or, worst, put it aside and never use it, the teacher decided to make it the next
assignment for the students. They were given the box, allowed to explore, and put it together.
Students also examined software programs and provided recommendations on which would best
support the 3D printer, as well as created a budget for needed materials.
At the same time, the staff also recognized the barriers of technology, and, more
importantly, that technology was not an end in of itself. In conversations with both the assistant
principal and academic specialist, the researcher noted that technology was reviewed critically at
Innovation High School. Prior to a new platform or app being introduced to the staff or students,
the team spent time considering the identified purpose of the application or tool, and how that
purpose fit an identified need to improve teaching and learning. The academic specialist
referenced an article he had been reading which discussed teachers as the drivers of instruction,
and technology as an accelerator. He further expressed a common viewpoint amongst staff that
the use of technology helped accelerate the learning process. Technology was viewed a
“powerful” tool that assisted in keeping student projects and learning relevant.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Two
The Innovation High School staff clearly perceived technology as impacting teaching and
learning positively, and providing students and teachers multiple advantages. Technology was
viewed as a doorway to new opportunities of learning. It brought efficiency in classroom
management and student research. It also increased collaboration and required everyone, staff
and students, to review information much more critically. In listening to the several interview
participants, it became clear to the researcher that each participant had prior experiences with
technology that contributed to their positive viewpoint of technology. Some had worked in the
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 71

business realm prior to education or as college students themselves engaging in the latest
technologies to support or improve their work.
According to the research discussed in chapter two, the perception that technology is
beneficial to instruction is a significant factor contributing to teacher ideology and their teaching
pedagogy. Teachers have to believe technology will make a difference in order for them to then
be willing to utilize it as a tool for instruction, and impact student learning. Innovation High
School staff demonstrated this sentiment as evidenced through interviews and survey data. In
addition, research explains teachers need to have ongoing opportunities for collaboration to
further develop and strengthen a constructivist pedagogy (Koehler and Mishra, 2009), which
supports a project-based learning and technology rich environment found at Innovation High
School through classroom and professional learning observations.
Finally, the project-based learning environment infused by technology access provided
the foundation for the shift from teacher as facilitator to the students leading their own learning.
Project-based learning captured student interest by connecting their learning to real-world
problems and allowed opportunities to engage with the community and experts in the field both
inside and outside the classroom. Technology provided a mode for extensive research,
collaboration, and communication. The online learning management system also provided
students an avenue for monitoring their own progress for each project as well as their academic
record.
Research Question Three
In what ways does the school climate and leadership support the integration of
technology? Through document analysis, the researcher came across multiple occurrences
where Innovation High School’s climate was referenced as notably different in comparison to
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 72

traditional high school settings. This difference is first reflected in the school’s four core values
that are emphasized on all of its literature and reports. The core values are trust, respect,
responsibility, and professionalism. Where values of respect and responsibility may be
commonly highlighted at any school, the values of trust, and, especially, professionalism are not
common. Another significant highlight was found in Innovation High School’s school profile
where the curriculum program is described as “a technology rich environment used to support an
alternative mode of instruction that puts the student at the center of the learning experience and
the teacher in the role of mentor and coach.” It was the actualization of this type of environment
that would be the most telling for the researcher. During observations, for example, the student
was often found at the forefront of instruction. Students were questioning one another’s work,
independently conducting research for various projects, presenting findings of their collaborative
work to their peers, and leading class discussion with supportive prompts from their classroom
teachers to help guide discussion, critique, and reflection.
It was immediately apparent upon first visitation that Innovation High School had
reconstructed its environment to be more reflective of the work environments their students may
encounter in the future. Unlike the traditional high school filled with multiple corridors, bell
schedules, and isolated classrooms, Innovation High School had no bells, shared work and play
areas, private conference rooms, and central gathering spaces like the hub, all of which were
utilized by both students and staff. It was not uncommon to see a teacher having lunch or a small
group meeting in the hub alongside students. Students also utilized conference rooms for project
planning and collaborative group work as did the staff. Classrooms were constructed as learning
labs and were twice the size of your average classroom. This increased space provided room for
movable furniture, display areas for projects, and sufficient space for collaborative work, a key
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 73

component of project-based learning. Although tech equipment was not always the latest
available, technology was readily available and in use by everyone throughout the campus.
Most notable to the researcher was the communication and relationships between
teachers, support staff, and students. The banter between students and adults initially appeared
very informal. Students openly joked with the adults and there was equal back and forth banter.
However, the more time the researcher spent on campus the more visible the high level of
respect and trust between staff and students were substantiated. Teachers and administration
referenced during their interviews the importance of treating students as adults in order to
establish not only trust, but also the level of professionalism expected in the work place.
Students learned responsibility at Innovation High School through the freedoms they were given
to sit where they wanted in class, select from various project options in courses, and to leave and
return to campus as needed based on their own class schedule. It was common to see students
sign themselves out from campus for lunch, to go to the neighboring community college for a
class, or to go to a sports activity at a nearby high school. One teacher also commented during
an interview that when the school decided to implement the BYOD policy that this also
demonstrated a level of respect to the students, entrusting them to use their own device
appropriately for schoolwork and be accountable for the security of it. In fact, many staff
members commented that devices were often left unattended without the concern that they would
be stolen. Staff or students could leave devices or cell phones on a table and walk away,
knowing their item would still be there when they returned. This is not typically the case in your
traditional high school. A potential factor in this occurrence could be school size. Innovation
High School’s enrollment of 408 students, allows for staff and students to get to know one
another well, and helps foster a trusting environment.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 74

Research has often emphasized the importance of not only rigor and relevance of
curriculum, but the critical impact fostering trusting relationships with students can have on their
achievement (McNulty & Quaglia, 2007). It was evident to the researcher that the staff took
extra measures to support the students at Innovation High School and openly discussed how the
classroom and school community could improve. The researcher observed teachers while in
class, immediately attend to students needing academic support, but also those who were not
focused for personal reasons. During an interview, a staff member shared how the school culture
allowed for students to openly share their likes and dislikes, or their passions and hobbies.
Students could be themselves at Innovation High School. The researcher observed students
question one another in class discussion freely, and saw the care they had for one another during
less structured times on campus such as during passing periods, nutrition, and lunch. Student
survey data referenced in the school’s 2014 WASC report echoed the students’ appreciation of
the privileges afforded to them at Innovation High School. Examples of school climate attributes
students appreciated included: classroom laptop and cell phone usage, on and off campus
freedoms, and appreciation of staff that genuinely cared for their learning and general wellbeing.
This data also revealed 41.7% of the students expressing the school culture as being “the best
thing about their school.”
Furthermore, the researcher was fortunate to be in the counseling office, when a student
had been summoned to discuss poor progress. It was clear the student and the counselor had
been having ongoing conversations, and the student easily confided in the counselor the issues
they were having attending to their schoolwork. The counselor provided a compassionate ear
while at the same time reminding the student of academic expectations and assisted them in
developing a plan with the student’s input to help them get back on track. The student who had
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 75

been tearful walked out of the office with much more confidence that they would be successful
in meeting their goals.
Another significant contributing factor to Innovation High School’s school climate is
their instructional approach. Technology on campus provides engagement and relevance for
students in their own learning, and the project-based learning (PBL) curriculum at the school
gives students a voice and ownership in their academic pursuits. All teachers at Innovation High
School have the opportunity to be trained in PBL through the national network. The network
offers national conference and workshop opportunities for teachers. The district has also
contracted with network coaches who provide school site support. In addition, staff is provided
ongoing training in the essentials of PBL and utilization of the learning management system that
provides an online platform for teaching and learning, as well as invited to attend various
conferences associated with the national network. Teachers on campus taught in teams, for
example the English and Social Studies teachers were paired. A PBL approach to curriculum as
described in chapter 3 of this dissertation is an inquiry-based method of learning for students to
solve real life problems collaboratively by applying research capabilities across content areas
(Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009; Bell, 2010). In this setting and at Innovation High School, the
teacher becomes a true facilitator and resource in the classroom while the student is challenged
to pursue their own inquiry process, utilizing all 21
st
century skills to then share and defend their
findings. Student projects at Innovation High School often took them into the community and
added another layer of relevance for student learning.
Staff also worked collaboratively in PLCs to monitor student data and revise curriculum
as needed. This was such dedicated time that the researcher was asked not to schedule any
interviews that may conflict with a teacher’s PLC participation. Staff members have embraced
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 76

this approach to instruction, and student survey data referenced in the school’s WASC report
echoed their value place on project-based learning as well. The report referenced students
valuing “the authentic, challenging, and collaborative opportunities it offered.” As a result over
79% of their students felt they were prepared for college or career as indicated in the school’s
student survey.
The researcher also came to find that the collaborative climate on campus was not solely
relegated to teachers and students. The support staff were also an integral component to the
school team, and participated in the weekly staff meetings and professional development. The
researcher had the opportunity to attend a Wednesday faculty meeting and observed the entire
office support team (secretaries, community liaison, and campus survivor) not only in attendance
for the business portion of the meeting, but also actively involved in the professional learning
occurring that afternoon on literacy and numeracy across content areas. As a result of this
unified participation, the researcher chose to interview one of the support staff members. In
speaking with the community liaison, it was shared that the support staff found it beneficial to be
part of these afternoon sessions to be informed of upcoming events, student issues, and to also
have a stronger understanding of the curricular program so that they could better support parents
when they called or came into the front office. The researcher found this to be a unique practice
in comparison to most school settings.
The researcher continued to examine what ways the school climate and leadership
support the integration of technology through teacher surveys. Tables 6 and 7 are representative
of the responses related to the third research question and supportive of the reflections shared
during interviews and campus observations.

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 77

Table 6
Survey Results for Research Question Three – Part 1
Survey Statement Absolutely
For the
most part Somewhat
Not at
all
11. My professional
development prepared me to
incorporate 21
st
century
learning skills on a daily basis
in my classroom.
8 2 3 0
12. My professional
development prepared me for
the use of technology in my
classroom.
8 2 3 0
20. I feel confident when
integrating technology into my
classroom instruction.
10 3 0 0

Table 7
Survey Results for Research Question Three – Part 2

Survey Statement Never Sometimes
Most of
the time Always
14. The administrative team
actively supports the
integration of technology into
the school’s classrooms.
0 1 5 7
16. I believe that technology
integration requires student
collaboration.
0 6 5 2

The survey results provide another glimpse of the pervasive collaborative culture and importance
of professional development when ensuring technology positively impacts teaching and learning.
When incorporating technology to the school schema, it’s critical that logistics do not become a
barrier. District IT and school administrative supports were frequently given high marks for
their expertise, availability, and problem solving on campus. This provides room for teachers to
focus on the instructional components of technology versus infrastructure needs. In addition,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 78

over 92% of the teachers felt administration supported them in integrating technology in their
classrooms. Through interviews, this was confirmed and further detailed as including both
infrastructure/hardware support and the professional learning time needed to build familiarity
with new equipment or instructional applications.
In addition to school climate, the researcher also examined the data collection to
determine the role leadership played in supporting the integration of technology at Innovation
High School. According to Bolman and Deal (2003), leadership is a critical component for an
organization’s success and sustainability. The foundation of any organization is its vision. This
vision is then nurtured through symbolic, structural, political, and human resource frames
(Bolman & Deal, 2003). In late August 2014, the researcher learned that Innovation High
School’s principal had received a promotion and moved on to another school district. An interim
principal was placed at the school site while the district could hire a new principal. The interim
principal was a retired principal from the district willing to come back and support Innovation
High School during this time of change. It was also learned through interviews and informal
discussions that Innovation High School had recently experienced several principal changes over
the last several years. Despite the turnover, however, there was strong leadership evident at the
school site.
The researcher had the opportunity to work closely with the school’s leadership team
during both visitations. The team consisted of the assistant principal, academic specialist, and
one of the department teachers. They had absolute vision, mission, and passion for their school
and the work being accomplished. As the trio strategized how to improve day-to-day procedures
as well as instruction at their high school, they very much operated from a human resource and
symbolic frame. They were conscientious about the needs and personalities of their staff and
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 79

students. They discussed issues at length being sure any initiatives or reforms that needed to be
brought forward were done so everyone could see the benefit and feel supported. Their
viewpoints regarding the school’s direction stemmed from a symbolic frame. The academic
specialist not only had been a teacher at the school prior to this position, but had also been a
former student at Innovation High School. He had a strong understanding of the school’s history
and founding principles. He also had the opportunity to work with the original principal
responsible for the launch of the school. The assistant principal, although new to this high
school, had come from another national network high school, and had a strong foundation on
their curricular design of integrating technology with project-based learning. Together with
strong department teacher leaders, they worked collaboratively to provide the necessary
professional learning the staff needed, but also to continue the conversations for ongoing school
improvement.
Politically, the school district, in partnership with the national network, had taken the
initiative in 1996 to develop a school that would produce students with the caliber of skills
needed for the local business industry. As a result, Innovation High School was born and
continues to thrive. In 2001, the district received funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation in support of its mission. Although that funding has dissipated, the district and the
national network continue their collaboration in support of the school. Furthermore, both the
network and the district have found Innovation High School’s curriculum program to be a model
for others. The national network has launched over 150 schools in 26 states and Australia on
their technology rich and project-based learning design.
Innovation High School has received several awards of distinction as previously
mentioned. Based on that success, the school district has also decided to scale Innovation High
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 80

School’s curriculum program across their district, elementary through high school. The
researcher had the opportunity to attend two of the secondary district leadership trainings entitled
“Transformation Leadership Workshops.” The school sites were re-examining their existing
practices, learning more about Innovation High School’s framework, and identifying their next
steps in building capacity at their own school’s to move in a similar direction. The national
network had come on board to assist the district in supporting the professional development that
would be needed to expand the model across the district. Each school had a representative team
of administration and teachers to discuss how they could build a strong culture of learning and
improvement. More specifically, the reflected on how technology-infused teaching and learning
could be aligned to the Common Core to ensure college and career readiness for their students.
In this way, it was clear the district, along with the national network have assisted Innovation
High School, and now the new schools, in providing a strong structural foundation for the
instructional practices they expect to see for their students.
Summary of Findings for Research Question Three
The data collection provided multiple sources of evidence emphasizing a technology-rich
school climate that was strongly supported by leadership. The school climate revealed a non-
traditional school setting focused on collaboration across the school community. The vision and
mission of the school was clear to everyone, including visitors, and embraced by the school
community. Technology use was so internalized by staff as a beneficial tool, it brought pause
when they were asked to explain how technology impacted their instruction. Knowledgeable and
supportive leadership were evident amongst administration and teachers at the school as well as
the district. There were also outside resources like the national network that helped the school
maintain its course.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 81

Emergent Themes
The following are the major themes that became apparent from the findings:
• Shared Vision – All stakeholders at Innovation High School had a strong foundation and
clear understanding of the school’s instructional expectations and outcomes for students.
Nurturing students’ 21
st
century competencies in a technology rich environment was the
school norm.
• Collaborative School Culture – Collaboration has been the essential vehicle for
communication at the school. It took many forms and was inclusive of all stakeholders.
• Systemic Professional Development – Innovation High School had an established plan
and time commitment for ongoing professional development. This occurred through
various vehicles, such as staff meetings, PLC, district trainings, the national network
conferences, and more. The district leadership also had a strategic plan in place that was
looking to scale the Innovation High School model across the district through a series of
leadership team professional learning workshops.
• Tradition – The school community had a great sense of pride regarding the innovative
formation of the school and its history. It was important to the stakeholders that fidelity
be maintained to the school’s founding principles in support of project-based learning and
technology integration.
• Teaching and Learning – Innovation High School fostered a community of learners for
both students and staff. Focus on continuous improvement and collaborative structures
were in place at all levels. For example, support staff (secretary, campus supervisor, and
community liaison) participated in all staff meetings and professional development,
which supported a united and collaborative culture.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 82

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
The conceptual model referenced in Chapter Three for Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK), developed by Koehler and Mishra (2009), demonstrates the need
for teacher abilities and skill development to be focused in three interrelated areas: technology,
pedagogy, and content. Expertise in and the ability to understand how all three areas support and
enhance one another are required to foster “the flexible knowledge needed to successfully
integrate technology use into teaching” (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p. 60). This conceptual model
was visible to the researcher at Innovation High School through analysis of the data collection,
and had direct impact on the student achievement and the school’s overall success.
According to TPACK, technology knowledge provides the teacher the ability to look
beyond the technology tool or program itself and how it can be expanded to classroom and
everyday use, a call for creativity which is imperative given the constant evolution of technology
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This level of innovation was apparent amongst the staff and students
at Innovation High School. Although teachers may not have held a degree or credential in
computer science, they each possessed an affinity with technology and had prior personal or
work experiences that grounded their curiosity and learning capacity for technology integration.
The school community had taken great strides to become a paperless campus and utilized Echo
and Google Drive with ease for research, data analysis, communication, and collaboration
opportunities. Students, being digital natives, demonstrated use and expertise with the
technology resources made available to them as they completed PBL assignments, presented
their projects, and engaged with their surrounding community. The use of technology as a tool
for teaching and learning was a norm for all at Innovation High School.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 83

In the TPACK model, teachers also need to have a good understanding of their content,
whatever subject matter that may be, as well as a strong understanding of the processes required
for student learning and application which assists teachers in scaffolding instruction
appropriately (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Again, the Innovation High School staff, both teachers
and support personnel, was engaged in ongoing professional development for their content,
technology, and instructional delivery. There were multiple modes of professional learning
opportunities available to them to build their capacity. As a result, strong leadership amongst
staff had been fostered, and has helped the school sustain their vision and purpose despite
principal leadership changes. The staff members were passionate about their work, and had
internalized not only the importance of infusing technology into their teaching, but had
established an ongoing cycle of improvement. This reflection and revision was revealed to the
researcher in each staff interview and through classroom and professional development
observations repeatedly. The teaching staff reflected on their teaching, reviewed student data,
and developed next steps for action on their own. More importantly, this openness to continually
modify instruction was supported in an environment that appreciated taking risks, in both
teaching and learning, and failure as an essential part of the learning process.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to identify practices that promote the use of technology
which transform teaching and learning in a 21
st
century K-12 school. This chapter provided an
opportunity for the researcher to examine in-depth the findings to the three research questions of
this case study:
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom?
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 84

2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
3. In what ways does the school climate and leadership support the integration of
technology?
Through triangulation of the data collection, which included review of various documents,
teacher surveys, staff interviews, and classroom observations, four themes emerged: shared
vision, collaborative school culture, systemic professional development, and tradition. These
themes were then discussed in relation to the TPACK conceptual model. The discussion
revealed Innovation High School to have developed and sustained signature practices such as
project-based learning, collaboration, and reflection that supported technology integration in the
classroom that enhanced teaching and learning while nurturing student inquiry and achievement.
This tradition transcended obstacles, such as budget, access to technology, and principal
turnover, and motivated the continual culture of creativity and innovation at the school.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 85

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Overview
Chapter one provides an introduction to the issues surrounding technology integration in
K-12 schools and the potential impact it can have on teaching and learning. Chapter two
presents the current literature on this topic and delves further into the history of technology use
in the classroom, examines the current barriers, and identifies promising best practices for
technology integration. Chapter three describes the methodology of this qualitative case study,
and defines the research questions and design, case study demographics, instrument tools, data
collection process, the conceptual model, and the validity and reliability of the methodology.
Chapter four presents the findings for each research question and discusses the emerging themes
from the data collection. Chapter five will provide a summary of this case study, and discuss
implications and recommendations for further research.
Purpose, Significance, and Methodology
The purpose of this case study was to identify practices that promote the use of
technology integration which transform teaching and learning in a 21
st
century K-12 school. The
study also explored the extent in which leadership played a role in that process, and if there was
evidence of responsibility shifting from the teacher to the student. The following three research
questions developed by the eleven members of a thematic dissertation team were addressed:
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
3. In what ways does the school climate and leadership support the integration of
technology?
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 86

Schools continue to struggle to integrate technology into the classroom in a systematic
way (Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Chai, & Tsai, 2013). Although access to technology and its use in the
classroom are increasing, success with technology integration can be uneven, and this can be true
for schools within the same school district. Nevertheless, technology integration in the
classroom can have positive effects on student achievement. This is one of eleven case studies
validating promising instructional practices used with technology integration that can be
replicated across schools. It provides models being used that enhance student learning and have
room for growth. In addition, it advises practitioners of the potential barriers that impede
technology integration from being sustainable, such as teacher ideology and professional
development. These areas in particular were limited in the research supporting the significance of
the study. This study provides additional research revealing how professional development can
take various forms. Furthermore, the study identifies instructional methods that are most
effective and influential for technology integration in the classroom so that there is a positive
impact on student learning.
The study used qualitative, descriptive research methods to best identify key practices
used in schools to integrate technology in the classroom. Given the constant change of
technology development and use, a qualitative approach is best. It provides an avenue for
exploration of variables that may not be known yet (Creswell, 2009). The cases study was one
of eleven case studies. This particular study focused on an urban high school setting. Data
collection was guided by the three research questions, and the data compiled through document
review, survey, interviews, and observations. The process of triangulation assisted the researcher
in interpreting the data and checking for validity (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher cross-
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 87

referenced what was said and/or implied during interviews with the data collected through
surveys, document analysis, and observations.
Conclusions
Through the triangulation of the data collection, five themes emerged from this case
study. The themes were: shared vision, collaborative school culture, systemic professional
development, tradition, and teaching and learning.
Shared vision. Shared vision amongst all stakeholders at Innovation High School was
apparent. The school community had a strong foundation and clear understanding of the
school’s instructional expectations and outcomes for students. Most of the staff members had
been a part of the school since its inception, either as faculty or some as former students, but
even those that were newer to the school believed in the importance of nurturing students’ 21
st

century competencies in a technology-rich environment. The infusion of technology as a tool for
instruction and student learning was a school-wide norm. This approach to learning was so
internalized amongst them, that it seemed odd to the staff that the researcher’s interview
questions were based on technology access and application. Through interviews, it was also
evident that each staff member had, at minimum, an affinity for technology either personally or
professionally, which allowed for openness towards technology integration in the classroom and
supported a school-wide attitude emphasizing technology and information literacy.
Collaboration. Collaboration was the second emerging theme, and has been the essential
vehicle for communication at the school. It took many forms and was inclusive of all
stakeholders. Teachers often met in departmental Professional Learning Communities to review
student data and lesson plan together. The school leadership team collaborated almost daily to
discuss and action plan school instructional focuses. Collaboration was also embedded into
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 88

Innovation High School’s faculty meetings, which were inclusive of the support staff. Students
collaborated in various forms in class, during unstructured parts of the day, as well as with their
community. It was clear that collaboration was modeled for staff and students alike, and viewed
as the main avenue for problem-solving, brainstorming, and working together, providing a
platform for building staff capacity and shared leadership. The researcher did not have the
opportunity to interview parents, but evidence of outreach to parents was clear through document
analysis. The modeling of collaborative behavior is key for any educator. Adults need to model
the behavior they hope students will replicate. This collaboration has to be demonstrated and
practiced by school leadership with the classroom teacher and parents who can then model for
the students. School leaders need to be mindful of practicing and modeling their instructional
vision they hope to provide to their students.
Professional development. The third theme emerging from the data was systemic
professional development. Innovation High School had an established plan and time
commitment for ongoing professional development. This occurred through various vehicles,
such as staff meetings, PLC, district trainings, conferences, and more. The school’s leadership
team stayed focus on continual improvement of their instructional practices by consistently
reviewing data and meeting with teachers. Research has shown that successful schools engage in
continuous cycles of improvement, frequently reviewing student data and instructional practices
to reflect and adjust approaches to teaching and learning. Innovation High School displayed a
team effort in defining problems of practice, strategizing ways to improve, and establishing
action plans for implementation and evaluation. This constant self-monitoring was seamless
amongst the staff both as a team and individually. The district leadership supported the school’s
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 89

work, provided outside consultants and coaches to enhance their work, and established a series of
leadership team professional learning workshops to support all of their schools in these efforts.
To maximize student achievement, instructional leaders need to be sure time is spent
improving the instructional core: teacher, content, and students. Systemic professional
development is an essential support. Others can learn from the structures put in place at
Innovation High School and its school district, which nurture continual professional growth for
staff. As instructional expectations change, our system needs to adapt as well. Simply having a
vision without providing the training and resources that support that vision would surely cause
teachers to become overwhelmed, confused, and frustrated. Continuous professional
development in alignment with district initiatives and school goals provides the support everyone
needs to be successful.
Tradition. The fourth emerging theme at Innovation High School was that of tradition.
The school community had a great sense of pride regarding the innovative formation of the
school and its history. The school had been planned as a joint venture between the school district
and the local business community in an effort to create a school that would develop students with
the skillset needed to meet the demands of the local labor market. It was also important to the
stakeholders that fidelity be maintained to the school’s founding principles in support of project-
based learning and technology integration. This history grounded everyone in their day-to-day
work with students and the community. It also impacted teacher attitudes and investment
towards their work and the outcomes of their students.
Teaching and learning. The final emerging theme was teaching and learning. It was
clear the staff at Innovation High School believed in their work and modeled behaviors of
teaching and learning for the 21
st
century. The main avenue of this work was through project-
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 90

based learning. Staff and students discussed their practices at length and used a “critical friends”
approach to revise and improve their work. There was a strong sense of shared leadership that
extended to their students, allowing room for exploration, creativity, and even failure. This is
critical when establishing an environment fostering innovation. Trial and error were part of the
process of creating something much more meaningful and powerful. Innovation High School
has created an environment where everyone is a learner and everyone has something to offer and
teach others. The district leadership has also recognized this uniqueness and has devised a
strategic plan looking to scale the Innovation High School model across the district.
District and school leaders should aspire to replicate Innovation High School’s model.
They can do so by creating structures that put the student in the forefront of teaching and
learning. Educators can increase student learning by taking on a project-based learning
approach, leveraged with technological tools to personalize student learning and increase
opportunities for collaboration, feedback, and reflection. An essential element to Innovation
High School’s success has been their ability to engage learners with real-life connections, and to
provide them with choices in their learning. By doing so, teachers have become more of a
facilitator to the learning process, and students have ample opportunity to discover their own
voice in their learning.
Moreover, Innovation High School’s staff provided students an engaging space to learn,
and then they let go. An environment of respect and accountability was apparent and provided
an opportunity for the staff to teach students the structures, foundations, and models needed for
engagement. Yet, at the same time, the classroom and overall school setting were not so
structured that they were predictable. Open dialogue and conversation were welcomed between
staff and students. Students and staff alike were encouraged to take risks. Learning was
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 91

reciprocal and treated like an experiment. If something didn’t work, there was allowance and
encouragement to stop and try again. Through project-based learning, high expectations, access
to technology, and community engagement, students developed self-esteem, leadership skills,
computer literacy, and an interest in their future endeavors.
Implications
Effective technology integration in schools has not been accomplished with ease.
Research has shown that schools struggle with integrating technology in a systemic way causing
initial efforts to fail. Often this is the case because mere access to technology does not ensure
successful student outcomes. Acquisition of technology can often become the first hurdle
schools encounter. Initially, Innovation High School had 1:1 computing for students. Desktop
computers were available to students school-wide during the school’s early years. Sustainability
of this hardware was a challenge, and as grant funds depleted, creative thinking was required.
Innovation High School found that they could successfully provide technology access by
investing site resources in their infrastructure and IT support, while a BYOD policy could
support the 1:1 access for students. Additional laptops are available in-house for students who
may need a replacement or do not have their own device. Leveraging their resources in this
manner has also helped the staff and students view technology as a tool for the work they do, and
not an end product unto itself. Technology access is a vehicle for teaching and learning,
especially as a mode for increased communication and collaboration. It does not become simply
a shiny, animated replacement for your traditional white board or lecture in comparison to what
is observed in typical classroom settings. In fact, teachers often spoke how they could easily do
without the Smart boards and projectors so long as the students still had access to laptops to
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 92

support the research and collaboration needed to better support their project-based learning
approach.
This study further demonstrates when vision and instructional practice are in alignment,
technology integration positively impacts teaching and learning. The TPACK conceptual model
was in full effect at Innovation High School. Evidence of a growth mindset is clear when you
observe the extent to which Innovation High School has been able to fuse technology integration
with teaching and learning. It requires leadership that supports an active learning environment
for teachers and students, an environment that provides structures not only for increased
engagement, but also for collaboration and reflection. An environment that encourages risks in
teaching and learning, and understands that failure can be an integral part of the learning process,
is key. Staff at Innovation High School emphasized a “learning by doing” attitude, and problem-
solved in various team formations to meet and surpass daily challenges. Their students followed
the staff’s modeled behaviors, and embraced a culture of trial and error, which fostered creativity
and innovation by all stakeholders.
Innovation High School is a true model for educators to replicate. This case study of
their school provides others with strategies for leveraging technology in the classroom.
Technology not only provided increased access to information for students and teachers, but it
also brought efficiency and personalization to teaching and learning. It increased interaction
between teacher and student as well as between student and peer. Technology provided the
vehicle allowing the teacher to become more of a facilitator and resource, and provided the
student greater responsibility and ownership of their learning. Technology integration, alongside
a project-based learning curriculum, gave students at Innovation High School voice and choice in
their learning. It helped establish a higher level of professionalism amongst the staff as well as a
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 93

level of respect and responsibility for the students. In turn, student learning extended beyond the
classroom and engaged the local community, businesses, and colleges alike, providing students
with real world experiences.
Recommendations for Further Study
Research regarding the impact of technology integration on teaching and learning is
minimal. Most recently, the research has focused on technology as a support to student
engagement and accessing of information. Although research is growing in the area of
technology readiness and informational literacy, technology is also an area of focus that is
constantly evolving and changing. As a result, there will be a continuous need for more recent
studies. Despite this case study being one of eleven research studies of a thematic group,
educators and policymakers could benefit from more research that demonstrates the positive
impact technology integration can have on teaching and learning when it is sustained.
The following recommendations for further research in the area of technology integration
and its impact on teaching and learning include:
1. The research on technology integration and teacher perceptions is scarce, and could
benefit from further study. Teachers’ perceptions regarding the impact technology
can have on student learning would be highly informative. For instance, although
research has revealed that digital natives and digital immigrants can learn technology
skills at the same rate, there is much more to be learned about a teacher’s self-efficacy
and their openness to integrating technology in the classroom. Research specifically
in the area of the growth mindset could be highly beneficial.
2. Further analysis is needed on the impact school size may have on the level of success
a school may have on integrating technology. Innovation High School provided a
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 94

highly personalized setting for students. Student enrollment tipping just past 400
allowed for staff to know each student and their interests well. Team-teaching in
class also provided increased student-teacher interaction. When a student needed
personal or academic attention, it was immediately noticed and supported. The small
school size also allowed for the school to accommodate sufficient access to
technology tools and IT support throughout campus.
3. Additional studies on how parent and community involvement support the
sustainability of technology integration in schools would also contribute further to the
research. The findings in this study focused on the teacher and administrative
perspectives. Gaining a deeper knowledge as to the level of importance technology
integration in schools has with parents and community would greatly benefit school
leaders as they seek limited resources for sustaining technology integration.

Technology integration can greatly impact teaching and learning in schools. Technology
is not simply for elevating student engagement, but provides students real-world relevance to
their learning. Students not only learn how to apply technology skills they can use in college or
future careers, but they learn how to interact with their peers and mentors in a more critical,
collaborative, and creative way. By developing technology and information literacy skills,
students develop global awareness, self-confidence, and strong communication skills. More
importantly, they access an education beyond their school walls, providing them a global
doorway for future opportunities we would want for all of our students in the 21
st
century.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 95

References
Baron, K. (2013). Districts receive last portion of grant money for Common Core prep.
Retrieved on December 28, 2013 from https://edsource.org/today/2013/districts-receiving-
last-portion-of-grant-money-for-common-core-prep/41581#.Ur-QCSjNCfQ
Bellanca, J., & Brandt, R. (Eds.). (2010). 21st century skills: Rethinking how students
learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The
Clearing House, 83(2), 39-43.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A.
(1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the
learning. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods. (5
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L. G., & Terrence, E. Deal. 2003. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice,
and leadership.
Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2011). An evaluation of the conditions,
processes, and consequences of laptop computing in K-12 classrooms. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 359-378.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Davies, R. S. (2011). A framework for evaluating educational technology integration.
Tech Trends, 55(5), 45-52.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 96

Daggett, R. & Jones, D. (2008). The process of change: Why change, what to do, and how to do
it. Leading change in high schools (pp. 71-132). Rexford, NY: International Center for
Leadership in Education.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (1999). Teaching as the learning profession:
Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3):
181–199.
Dewey, J. (1915). Education vs. trade-training - Dr. Dewey's reply. The New Republic
3(28), 42.
Ertmer, P. A. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T. (2010). Teacher technology change: how knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education.
42 (3): 255-284.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (pp. 25-67).
Gall, M. P., Gall, J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research – An introduction. (7
th

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hastie, M. (2007). Instructional Design for Best Practice in the Synchronous Cyber
Classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (4), 281-294.
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.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 97

Holden, H. & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and
technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343-367.
Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K–12 blended learning. Innosight Institute.
Retrieved on January 1, 2014 from
http://www.leadcommission.org/sites/default/files/The%20Rise%20of%20K-
12%20Blended%20Learning_0.pdf
Keengwe, J. & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering meaningful learning through
constructivist pedagogy and technology integration. International Journal of
Information and Communication Technology Education, 7(4), 1-10.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional
technology integration and student learning. Education and Information
Technologies, 17(2), 137-146.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Lawless, K. A. & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating
technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue
better questions and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of
Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
Lim, C.-P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Bridging the gap:
Technology trends and use of technology in schools. Educational Technology &
Society, 16(2), 59–68.
Liu, M., Hsieh, P., Cho, Y., & Schallert, D. (2006). Middle school students' self-
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 98

efficacy, attitude, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning
environment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 17(3). 225-242.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K.L., & Anderson, S.E. (2010). Learning from
leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. University of
Minnesota and University of Toronto. Retrieved on July 26, 2013 from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key
researchPages/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student- Learning.aspx
Machin, S., McNally, S., & Silva, O. (2007). New technology in schools: Is there a
payoff? The Economic Journal, 117(522), 1145–1167.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McEwan, B. (2011). Hybrid engagement: How Facebook helps and hinders students’
social integration. Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, 2, 3-23.
McLester, S. (2011). Building a Blended Learning Program. District
Administration, 47(9), 40-42.
McNulty, R. J., & Quaglia, R. J. (2007). Rigor, Relevance and Relationships. School
Administrator, 64(8), 18-23.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for
measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with technology, 23, 40-40.
Montelongo, J. A., & Herter, R. J. (2010). Using technology to support expository
reading and writing in science classes. Science Activities, 47(3), 89-102.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 99

Moran, J., Ferdig, R. E., Pearson, P. D., Wardrop, J., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2008). Technology and
reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with
recommendations for policy and practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 6-58.
Musawi, A.S.A. (2011). Redefining technology role in education. Creative Education
2(2), 130-135.
November, A. (2012). Who owns the learning: Preparing students in the digital age.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
November, A., & Mull, B. (2012). Flipped learning: A response to five common
criticisms. Retrieved on January 1, 2014 from
http://www.esehoolnews.com/2012/03/26/flipped-learning-a-response-to-five-common-
crit i-cisms.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-Efficacy Theory. The Gale Group. Retrieved on December 29,
2013 from http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Petriashvili, I. (2012). Integrating Electronic Instructional and Assessment Tools
Into Teacher Education Programs. International Journal of Arts & Sciences.
Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(4), 667-686.
Plair, S.K. (2008). Revamping professional development. The Clearing House, 82(2), 70-74.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards the new
US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age. In G. Kirkman (Editor),
The Global Information Technology Report: Readiness for the Networked Word (pp. 332-
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 100

37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ringstaff, C., & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technology
investment. Online report at: http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/learning_return.pdf
Smith, G. E., & Throne, S. (2007). Differentiating instruction with technology in K-5
classrooms. International Society for Technology in Education.
Straub, E.T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and directions for future
learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625-649.
Strobel, J., & Van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis
of meta-analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 4.
The Partnership for 21st Century, (2011, March). Framework for 21
st
Century Learning
Skills. Retrieved November 28, 2013, from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager.pdf
Thompson, P. (2013). The Digital Natives as Learners: Technology Use Patterns and
Approaches to Learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12-33.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.
Walsh, K. (2012). Why every student should be in a 1”1 classroom. Retrieved on
November 29, 2013 from www.emergingedtech.com/2012/04/why-every-student-should-
be-in-a-11-classroom.

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
101

Appendix A: Document Analysis Tool
Document Review Template

RQ 1: What technology is present at the school?

Data Needs
● What are the technology categories?
Hardware (comp, tablets; ancillary-extra
tech-LCD, Elmo, Smartboard, etc; web-based
curriculum (APEX), software (programs),

● # of hardware available

Documents
❏ CDE-DataQuest
❏ WASC
❏ Title 1 inventory
❏ School websites
❏ News articles
❏ School site plan
❏ Common Core Technology Expenditure
Plans
❏ School Accountability Report Card
(SARC)
❏ Technology Plan

● Frequency of access to and use of technology

Documents
❏ Schedule-sign-up sheets for technology
use
❏ Computer Lab or cart Sign ups
❏ AP/Tech Director tracking forms

● Policies in place within the schools for
technology

Documents:
❏ School site plan
❏ Teacher Handbook
❏ WASC
❏ LEA/LCAP (local education agency plan)

● PD’s – instructional strategies

Documents:
❏ District-wide PD Pacing plan
❏ School-wide PD Pacing plan
❏ LEA plan/LCAP
❏ Common Core Plans

● Obstacles and challenges the school has
overcome

Documents:
❏ WASC

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
102

RQ 2: How is technology used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?
Data Needs

Understand models of technology
integration at the school

Documents:
❏ School Site Plan
❏ WASC
❏ School website
❏ Teacher-Student School Handbook
❏ PD plan
What technology tools available at the
school are actually being used in the
classroom?
Documents:
❏ School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
❏ Schedule-sign-up sheets for technology use
❏ Computer Lab or cart Sign ups
❏ AP/Tech Director tracking forms

How long has the technology been available
at the school?

Documents:
❏ WASC
❏ CDE
How long have the observed teachers
implemented the technology tools?

Documents:

How are the technology tools used to aid
student learning?

Documents: Student achievement data
❏ CST Data
❏ District benchmarks Data
❏ Classroom Grade Data
❏ Teacher Assessments
❏ Single Site Plan
What PD or training has impacted use of
technology tools?
Documents:
❏ PD/Training Teacher Evaluation Forms
❏ WASC
What are the district/school policies on
technology integration?
Documents:
❏ District-wide policy
❏ School-wide policy
❏ WASC
❏ SSPSA
❏ LCAP
Student achievement data Documents:
❏ CDE
❏ Data Quest
❏ CASHEE
Forms and observational tools Documents:
❏ Copy of observation form
TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
103

RQ 3: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?

Data Needs
Admin, teachers, students and parents will all be
data sources.

Documents:
❏ Year End Evaluation Data
❏ WASC (perception data)
We’re looking for opinions, beliefs, values, and
efficacy
Documents:
❏ WASC (perception data)
The relationship between inputs and outputs on the
campus.

Documents:
❏ WASC
❏ School Site Plan
Sub-questions
● How is tech being used in the classrooms?
● Has tech impacted the quality of instruction?
● Has tech brought additional challenges to the
classroom?
● How has tech impacted teacher efficacy?
Student efficacy?
● Has the investment made in tech been worth
the cost?
Documents:
❏ WASC
❏ School Site Plan

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
104

Appendix B: Survey Protocol
Teacher Survey
Personal Demographics

1. Which of the following age groups are you?
24 years and younger
24-30 years old
30-40 years old
40+ years old
2. How long have you been teaching?
0-2 years
3-5 years
6-10 years
10+ years
3. What is your current skill level with technology?
“I avoid it” to novice
Somewhat proficient
Proficient
Advanced
4. What is your role at the school? Please check all that apply.
Teacher
Grade-level or Department Chair
Committee Chair (or equivalent)
Instructional Coach or Specialist
District Representative
Administrator
Site-based Technology Point Person
Other _______ (or text box)

Technology Access

5. What technology hardware do you have in your classroom?

6. What technology software is available for classroom use?

7. What is the structure in place at your school for your students to gain access to additional
technology outside of what is present in your classroom?

Technology Policies

8. Please check all of the policies that are in place at your school site.
Acceptable use policy
Security policy
Etiquette policy (i.e. Cyber bullying, etc.)
Parent contract/agreement for take-home usage

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
105

Technology and Instruction

9. I have been integrating technology into my daily lessons for…
0-1 years
2-3 years
4-5 years
5+ years
10. I believe that technology has positively impacted the quality of my instruction.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
11. My professional development prepared me to incorporate 21
st
century learning skills on a daily
basis in my classroom.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
12. My professional development prepared me for the use of technology in my classroom.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
13. How often do you incorporate technology into your daily lessons?
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Always
14. The administrative team actively supports the integration of technology into the school’s
classrooms.
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Always
15. I believe that technology positively impacts student creativity.
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Always
16. I believe that technology integration requires student collaboration.
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Always
17. I believe that technology is relevant for both student engagement and student achievement.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
106

18. The school’s investment in technology has proven worth its cost.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
19. Technology has impacted teaching in what way?
Significantly enhanced teaching
Has somewhat improved teachers’ ability to instruct and manage
Has had a slightly negative impact on the teaching profession
Has proved subversive to the abilities and missions of teachers
20. I feel confident when integrating technology into my classroom instruction.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
107

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
Teacher Interview Protocol

RQ1: What technology is present at the school and how it is used as a tool of instruction in
the classroom?

1. What types of technology are being used in your classroom?

2. Who uses technology in your classroom? For what purpose?

3. What learning outcomes are associated with technology use?

4. Where (in what learning activities) do you integrate technology into daily classroom
practice?

5. How do students demonstrate mastery using technology?

RQ2: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?

1. What are your general feelings about the role of technology in education?
Probing questions:
a. What role does technology play in preparing for their futures?

2. What do you consider to be the affordances and constraints of integrating technology into
your classroom?

3. Are the times when you choose not to use technology for instruction? When? Why?

4. What advice would you give to teachers as they begin to integrate technology into their
classroom?

RQ3: In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where
does the leadership come from?

1. How would you describe the technology culture at your school?

2. What has motivated you to successfully integrate technology into your classroom?

3. What challenges have you faced when integrating technology in your classroom?

4. What impact has school leadership had on your use of technology?

5. What kinds of professional experiences have influenced you integration of technology?

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
108

Administrator Interview Protocol

RQ1: What technology is present at the school and how it is used as a tool of instruction in
the classroom?

1. What types of technology are being used in your classroom?

2. Who uses technology in the classroom? For what purpose?

3. What learning outcomes are associated with technology use?

4. Where (in what learning activities) is technology integrated into daily classroom
practice?

5. How do students demonstrate mastery using technology?

RQ2: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?

5. What are your general feelings about the role of technology in education?
Probing questions:
a. What role does technology play in preparing for their futures?

6. What do you consider to be the affordances and constraints of integrating technology into
classrooms?

7. What advice would you give to teachers as they begin to integrate technology into their
classroom?

RQ3: In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where
does the leadership come from?

6. How would you describe the technology culture at your school?

7. What has motivated you to successfully integrate technology at the school?

8. What challenges have you faced when integrating technology at your school?

9. What impact has district leadership had on your school use of technology?

10. What kinds of professional experiences have influenced you integration of technology?

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
109

Appendix D: Observation Protocol

Classroom Observation Protocol

Teacher _______________________________ Date _______________________
School ________________________________ Grade/Subject: _______________
Observer _______________________________ Time: _______________________

Research Questions
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
3. In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where does the
leadership come from?

Classroom Environment
Student Seating Arrangement
Ø Take a picture/video of classroom before students enter
Number of Students:
Teacher Proximity to Students:
Teacher in front of class, Teacher
moves around, Teacher works
with groups, Teacher behind
desk, etc.

Location of Technology:
Technology in front of classroom,
Technology at student desks

Use of wall space:
To display student work, To aid
in learning, etc.

Additional Classroom Environment Notes

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
110

What technology tools available at the school are actually being used in the classroom?
Technology used Who is using
technology?
How and to what purpose is the technology being used?

__ Active Board
__ Clickers
__ IPods
__ IPads
__ Internet Videos
__ Power Points
___ Visuals
___ Audio
___ Internet
___Websites
___ Doc Cams
___ Other:
________________
________________

___ Teacher
___ Student
___ Both
___ Other

How are the technology tools used to aid student learning?
Learning Objective:

Desired Student
Outcome:

How is technology
being used to
accomplish learning
objective?
• Motivation
• Engagement
• CFU
• Communication
• Research
• Differentiation
• Creating project
• Assessment
• Other

Are the technology
tools as stated in
interviews and
survey being used in
classrooms?

TECHNOLOGY
INTEGRATION
111

Observation Notes

Abstract (if available)

Abstract With the launch of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) emphasizing 21st century skills and standardized online assessments, the availability of technology in the classroom has increased. Although technology can be a novel tool that captures student engagement, its ability to increase student achievement outcomes is a much more complex process. The purpose of this study was to identify the practices that have promoted the use of technology to transform teaching and learning in a high-performing secondary school which could then serve as a model for others. ❧ The results of the study addressed the following research questions: (1) What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the classroom

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Learning and teaching with technology

PDF

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

1:1 device program in a K-12 public school: the influence of technology on teaching and learning

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

A case study: technology, teaching and student learning

PDF

A case study: a thriving secondary arts progrm in the face of high-stakes accountability

Asset Metadata

Creator Fuentes, Roxane (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/28/2015

Defense Date 03/02/2015

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

Tag constructivism (learning),educational change,educational technology,learning environments,OAI-PMH Harvest,technology integration

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart E. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Roach, John A. (committee member)

Creator Email roxabc@aol.com,roxanefu@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-563014

Unique identifier UC11302109

Identifier etd-FuentesRox-3411.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-563014 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FuentesRox-3411.pdf

Dmrecord 563014

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Fuentes, Roxane

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