University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 1

Integration of Technology and Teaching and Learning Practices at a Technology Magnet
Elementary School:
A Case Study

by

Houri Arslanian Keuroghlian

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 Houri Arslanian Keuroghlian
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 2

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I thank God for being by my side and giving me the strength I
needed to get through this journey.
I offer my sincere gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. Stuart Gothold for his
guidance and support. Your feedback and encouragement was invaluable. You made
this process manageable from the start and I feel blessed to have worked under your
guidance and direction. I would like to also thank Dr. Dennis Hocevar and Dr. Narek
Kassabian for serving on my committee. Thank you for your guidance. Dr. Kassabian,
thank you for continually reminding me that I can do this. I appreciate your
encouragement and support through this process.
Great things can start from humble beginnings. It was a casual conversation with
one of my administrators a few years ago that led me to the start of this journey. Thank
you Dr. Rene Valdes for all your advice and encouragement. I’d also like to thank Dr.
Elena Heimerl for her continued support and cheerful words of encouragement when I
really needed them. A special thank you to my dear friend and colleague of ten years
Jennifer Dall for walking with me (figuratively and literally) through this process.
Thanks for listening to me when I was overwhelmed and stressed, and for all the advice
and moral support. Our walks always helped clear my mind. To my case study site
administrators and participants, thank you for allowing me to come into your school and
classrooms, and for providing great data. And to the rest of my friends and colleagues,
every word of encouragement and support you’ve given me has motivated me and helped
me to push myself to the finish line. I am blessed and thankful to have each and every
one of you in my life.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 3

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my family. Reaching this major milestone in my life
would not have been possible without the never-ending support of my loving family. I
am forever grateful to my wonderful parents for instilling in me the strong passion for
learning, and the belief that I can achieve anything and soar beyond all expectations.
Their endless love, support, and encouragement throughout my life have motivated me to
continue my learning and pursue higher education. Mom and dad, I owe this to you. To
my sweet sister, thank you kouyrig for all your love. To my extended family, especially
my grandmother, thank you for all the love and support. Grandma, you are truly the most
amazing and selfless woman I have ever known in my life. Thank you for all your
prayers and endless well wishes for my continued success in life. You are my angel. To
my wonderful in-laws, I am so grateful for all your kindness, love, and support
throughout this process. You have been an incredible support system. Last but definitely
not the least, to my loving husband John, and our beautiful children Sevana and Lori,
thank you for your endless love and encouragement. John, you have been patient and
understanding throughout this process. I can’t thank you enough for believing in me and
doing everything possible to ease this process for me. Sevana and Lori, you are my
inspiration, I love you beyond imagination. Thank you for bringing incredible joy to my
life. May you always be happy and healthy, and may your futures be blessed with love
and infinite success in everything you choose to do. This dissertation is also dedicated to
the loving memory of Hovan Tashjian, a phenomenal person I feel proud to have called
my good friend. I will eternally be grateful for your friendship and constant support. The
world lost a gem, but heaven won a bright star. May you rest in peace my dear friend.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 4

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2
Dedication 3
Abstract 6
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 10
Significance of the Study 10
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations 11
Assumptions 11
Limitations 12
Delimitations 13
Definitions 13
Organization of the Study 15

Chapter 2: Literature Review 16
Introduction 16
History and Background 16
Technology in K-12 Schools 18
21
st
Century Skills 20
Common Core 22
Impact of Technology on Education 24
Positive Aspects 26
Negative Aspects 27
Barriers and Issues 27
Teacher Resistance 29
Professional Development 30
On-going Support 31
Teacher Ideology, Attitudes, and Beliefs 32
School Climate and Leadership 34
Conclusions 35

Chapter 3: Methodology 37
Introduction 37
Purpose 37
Research Questions 38
Research Design 38
Method 38
Thematic Dissertation Group 39
Theoretical Framework 39
Population and Sample 42
Context 42
Sample 43
Selection Criteria 43
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 5

Instrumentation 45
Interview Instruments 46
Observation Instrument 47
Survey and Document Review Instruments 47
The Four Frames 48
Data Collection 49
Document Review Method 49
Interview Methods 49
Process of Obtaining Consent 50
Approach to Capturing Data 51
Observation Methods 52
Process of Gaining Entry 53
Approach to Capturing Data 54
Survey Methods 55
Validity and Reliability 56
Data Analysis 57
Approach to Coding Collected Data 57
Ethical Considerations 58
Summary 59

Chapter 4: Presentation of Data 60
Methodology 60
Findings for Research Question Number One 61
Findings for Research Question Number Two 66
Findings for Research Question Number Three 73
Theoretical Framework and Discussion of Themes 81
Themes 84
Self-Efficacy 85
The Four Frames of Leadership 86
Summary 89

Chapter 5: Discussion 90
Findings 91
Implications for Practice 93
Future Research 94

References 96
Appendix A 107
Document Review Template 108
Teacher Interview Protocol 111
Administrator Interview Protocol 112
Teacher Survey 113
Classroom Observation Protocol 116

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 6

Abstract
This qualitative study examined the ways in which technology has been integrated into
teaching and learning practices at an academically high-performing technology magnet
school. Although access to technology has significantly increased in K-12 schools in the
last decade and a half, most research indicates the actual usage in most classrooms to be
of a low-level (i.e. administrative, skill-drill, etc.) variety. This study seeks to explore
how an urban elementary school identified for its high student performance as well as for
its high use of technology has integrated technology into their teaching and learning
practices. A survey of school staff, interviews with administrators and teachers,
document analysis, and classroom and campus observations were used to triangulate the
data, to determine the perceived impact of technology on student learning and the overall
school climate. Three themes emerged from the study in response to the research
questions: Seamlessness of the integrated technology, student connectedness, and
integrated and on-going teacher training. Implications for educators include the necessity
of structured technology implementation plans that are designed to meet the individual
needs of the teachers.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 7

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

Background of the Problem
Education is continually transforming to accommodate the growing demands and
expectations of society. Technology integration has been a crucial part of transforming
education. It has become an instrumental component of teaching and learning in schools.
Technology itself has evolved tremendously in the last thirty years, where it was once
viewed as a tool to create basic programs (Dettelis, 2010). In the past, the main function
of the computer was for inputting of data.
The integrations of technology for teaching and learning was mandated in schools
by Title II, Part D of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), (ESEA, Title
II, Part D, 2001). Davies (2011) supports this mandate by explaining that learning is
enhanced through the use of technology. However, the barriers that schools and teachers
encounter are closely aligned with teachers’ beliefs about the integration of technology
into teaching and learning (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur & Sendurur,
2012). In addition, Hew and Brush (2007) agree by adding that teachers’ lack of
knowledge and skill, and their attitudes and beliefs are barriers to technology integration.
Teacher resistance (Bingimals, 2009), professional development (Johnson,
Adams, Becker, Cummins, Estrada, Freeman & Ludgate, 2013), and on-going support
(Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney & Caranikas-Walker, 2010) are additional barriers that have
a major impact on technology integration. Hence, Petriashvili (2012) recommends that in
order to have balanced use of technology, there needs to be more trainings for the
integration of technology into the curriculum.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 8

There are numerous positive and negative aspects of technology integration on
student achievement. Researchers believe that student achievement increases as
technology use increases. In result, as students gain knowledge in core subject areas they
also acquire important skills to be successful in the workplace (Cantrell, Lui, Leverington
& Taylor, 2007; Davies, 2011; Hew & Brush, 2007). In addition, technology integration
has a positive effect on student engagement, motivation, school attendance, parental
satisfaction with the school system, and enriched 21
st
century skills (Keengwe,
Schnellert, & Mills, 2012). Although the positive aspects of technology outweigh the
negatives, there have been some studies that have proved the negative side of technology
integration. Some of these studies have shown that student achievement was not
positively impacted by the use of technology in the classroom, in fact, it had a negative
impact, as the teachers felt that student achievement actually decreased because of the
time they were required to invest toward the use of the technology (Mitchell, Bailey, &
Monroe, 2007). Migliorino (2011) indicated that educators learning to use new
technology experience all of the same difficulties of learning a new language. Based on
this, it can be stated that the constant expansion of technology can become overwhelming
for many teachers. Thus, these teachers might resist the integration of technology
altogether.
Teacher resistance toward technology integration can be attributed to their lack of
specific knowledge and skills, and attitudes and beliefs toward technology (Hew and
Brush, 2007; Bingimals, 2009). This will in turn have a negative influence on teachers’
confidence and competence causing them to have resistance to integrate technology into
the curriculum. Hence, the need for professional development comes into play. In order
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 9

to keep up with 21
st
Century teaching and learning practices, professional development
and training are crucial factors for technology integration into the classroom (Overbaugh
& Lu, 2008; Plair, 2008; Wetzel et al., 2009). Professional development activities have
proved to support teachers’ decisions to integrate technology (Kopcha, 2012).
Teacher ideology, attitudes and beliefs are heavily dependent upon working
together in an environment with continued support and professional development in
technology use and integration (Kopcha, 2012). This is supported by Vygotsky’s
sociocultural theory, which explains that learning takes place when people work and
interact with each other in social or organized activities (Palincsar, 2006). This will in
turn lead to positive teacher attitudes (Holden and Rada, 2011), which will then increase
teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), leading to increased and effective integration of
technology in the classroom (Lin & Lu, 2010).
Naturally, without the support of school leadership teacher ideology change will
not be possible, as the school leadership plays an integral role in creating an environment
that’s supportive of technology use (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). When
administrators value and invest in technology use, the likelihood of a buy-in from their
staff increases (Wang, 2010). Additionally, when a school or a district identify
technology to be an integral part of teaching and learning, professional development and
training will become important aspects of the school culture, encouraging and motivating
teachers to demonstrate positive changes in technology integration (Schrum & Levin,
2013; Somekh, 2008).

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 10

Statement of the Problem
Students need skill and knowledge to succeed in an ever-changing technological
world. Many K-12 schools are embracing technology. More needs to be learned about
how technology affects teaching and learning.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the impact of technology on
teaching and learning practices in a high-technology use K-12 school. This case study
will add to the existing literature identifying how an elementary technology magnet
school has successfully adopted technology use and integration into their curriculum.
The information in this case study will assist educators in implementing practices and
strategies which will help them in adopting technology for teaching and learning at their
educational institutions in effective ways.
The three research questions that guide this study are as follows:
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?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant because identifying the impact of technology on teaching
and learning practices in a high technology use K-12 school is important and must be
understood to achieve the best results in technology integration in any educational
institution. A study conducted by Johnson, Wills, Levin, and Haywood (2011) found that
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 11

by 2015, 80% of the population in the United States, many of which will be students, will
be using mobile devices to access the Internet. Thus, according to Prensky (2013),
schools must prepare students for a world that has become more and more dependent on
technology.
This study can inform policy makers, school administrators, and all other
educators on factors and strategies that promote the successful integration of technology
into teaching and learning practices. Those who manage professional development for
teachers can be informed of ways to support teachers in their attempts to integrate
technology into their classrooms. Administrators can also benefit from the given
teachers’ perspectives in regards to the administrator support for technology integration.
In addition, educators in general will have a better understanding of the barriers that exist
in technology adoption and integration, and how to best address, reduce or eliminate
these barriers that cause teachers to limit the successful integration of technology into
their classrooms.
Assumptions, Limitations and Delimitations
Assumptions
There are a number of assumptions applicable to this qualitative study. The
following is a list of all the assumptions, which were made for this study:
§ The selected school was explicitly identified as a high-technology use K-12
school.
§ Participants would answer interview questions honestly and to the best of their
ability.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 12

§ The interview questions were appropriate to receive the types of responses needed
to describe the data.
§ Participants had good knowledge and background about the school and its
programs, specifically the technology program.
Limitations
The limitations of this qualitative study are factors that might affect the outcome
of this study, which are outside the researcher’s control. The following are the
limitations for this study:
§ This case study was limited to one elementary school; thus, the findings may not
be generalized to other schools or districts.
§ This case study was limited to a small sample size.
§ The sample was dependent on the teachers’ and administrators’ willingness to
participate in this study.
§ The study was limited to only six days of research on site; thus, it might not be
reflective of all teachings, and practices of the school as a whole.
§ This study may be limited because participants may not answer questions
truthfully, and may answer questions based on what they’re expected to say, due
to the fact that they might not be as proficient in technology use and integration as
others.
§ The collection of all data was subject to the knowledge, skills, and bias of a single
researcher.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 13

Delimitations
The delimitations of this qualitative study are the boundaries of the study (Best &
Kahn, 2006). The following are the delimitations of this study:
§ The study was delimited to 6 to 8 days of research on site.
§ The research instruments were designed by a thematic dissertation group
to focus on the integration of technology in teaching and learning as it
relates to the leadership, the available support, and teaching practices.
§ The sample chosen comprised of teachers who are integrating technology
in everyday instruction, and are considered highly qualified and certified
to teach grades K-6.
Definitions
The following terms are used in this case study. Below, these terms are defined to
provide an understanding of their use in this qualitative study.
§ The Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (P21). P21 was founded in 2002, as a
coalition that promotes infusion of 21
st
Century Skills into U.S. K-12 education.
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills has developed a framework for 21
st
Century
learning, which describes the skills, knowledge, and expertise students need to
successfully enter today’s workforce.
§ The Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The CCSS are a common baseline
of state education standards in English language arts and mathematics for grades
K-12.
§ No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. NCLB was a reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), signed into law by President
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 14

Bush in 2002. NCLB emphasized the closing of the achievement gap for students
from different socio-economic backgrounds. NCLB has brought significant
changes to schools in the U.S. including the integration and use of technological
tools for promoting maximum learning for students.
§ Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK). TPACK is a
framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration, which encompasses
the areas of content, pedagogy, technology, and the relationship between them, as
an integral part of good teaching with technology (Koehler and Mishra, 2009).
§ Annual Performance Index (API). The API score is a California State
accountability system for kindergarten through grade twelve public education in
California. The API is a single number, ranging from a low of 200 to a high of
1000, which reflects a school’s or a district’s performance level, based on the
results of statewide assessments. Its purpose is to measure the academic
performance and improvement of schools (California Department of Education,
[CDE] 2013).
§ Four Frames. Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest that organizations function
through a combination of Four Frames, or perspectives. The Four Frames are:
political, symbolic, structural and human resources frames.
§ Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is ones’ confidence in his or her ability to organize
and execute a given course of action to solve a problem or accomplish a task
(Bandura, 1997).
§ School Accountability Report Card (SARC). Public schools in California
provide information about themselves to the community to allow the public to
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 15

evaluate and compare schools for student achievement, environment, resources
and demographics (www.cde.ca.gov).
Organization of the Study
This study was conducted to identify the impact of technology on teaching and
learning practices in a high-technology use K-12 school. This qualitative dissertation
is divided into five chapters. The chapters include an overview of the study, a
literature review, the research design, the findings of the study and a conclusion.
Chapter one gives an overview of the study by providing a general outline about the
background and statement of the problem, purpose and significance of the study, the
assumptions, limitations and delimitations of the study, definition and information on
how this study is organized. Chapter two is the literature review based on the current
literature on the impact of technology on education in K-12 schools, its negative and
positive aspects, the barriers, teacher ideology, attitudes and beliefs, and school
climate and leadership. Chapter three is the methodology used for this qualitative
study. It includes an introduction, the research questions and design, the theoretical
framework, population and sample, the instrumentation, data collection and analysis.
Chapter four is a presentation of data of this qualitative study based on the research
conducted at Pacific Technology Magnet Elementary School, in Los Angeles County.
Chapter five is the final chapter of this dissertation, which gives the conclusions of
this study. Chapter five also discusses recommendations for future research,
summarizes the findings, conclusions and implications of this study.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 16

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
This chapter will review the literature on the impact of technology on education
and how it has affected teaching and learning practices in a high technology use K-12
school. The organization of this literature review has linked research and literature that
clearly relates to the problem statement. The chapter is comprised of five major sections
that address history and background of technology in schools as it relates to 21
st
Century
skills and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); the impact of technology in
teaching and learning; teacher ideology and best practices; and a critique of what this
study will add to the current literature.
History and Background
Education is always transforming to accommodate the growing demands of
society. According to Elmore (1987), the foundation of schooling has frequently evolved
from the 1700s by restructuring the curriculum to meet basic societal changes. Elmore
(1987) notes that the cycle of educational reforms have had three major peaks, which are
the growth of the common school in the nineteenth century, the Progressive movement in
the early twentieth century, and the Great Societal programs of the mid-1960’s. During
these periods there was much optimism about the ability of schools to change due to new
social and political demands and to solve social problems. In between these peaks, public
attention and demand for reform created skepticism about the value of schools and
questioned the successes and failures of the education system.
When technology was first introduced it was viewed as a tool to create programs
and emphasized basic formatting (Dettelis, 2010). In the mid-1970’s, the first
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 17

commercially available microcomputer was built, which allowed the real possibility that
computers could be brought into the classroom. In England, the Council for Educational
Technology (CET) introduced microcomputers in British classrooms (Ely, 2008). In the
United States in the early 1980’s schools purchased these new smaller computers, which
led to a period of significant growth in the use of computers as instructional media;
however, instructional use of these computers only focused on drill-and-practice and
tutorial programs (Molanda, 2008). In the early 1990’s technology had become
interchangeable with everything relating to a computer, and industrial arts was a major
player in helping to bring computers into school classrooms (Dettelis, 2010). In the
1990’s, Internet connectivity for schools became a reality (Sugar & Brown, 2008). In the
year 2000, the wireless tool became increasingly widespread in K-12 schools. This rapid
change of technology has exerted enormous pressure on classroom teachers, urging them
to develop flexible and robust knowledge frameworks to identify ways to integrate
technology into their pedagogy to support student achievement (Mishra, Koehler, &
Kereluik, 2009).
Equipping today’s classrooms with state of the art technology is merely one single
factor of technology integration. According to Hooper (2008), there are very few
incentives for teachers to change their traditional ways of teaching. Often times, when
teachers do use technology in the curriculum, they sustain their traditional ways of
teaching by finding a new means (Prensky, 2013). According to Prensky (2013), schools
must prepare students for a world that has become more and more dependent on
technology. Reading, writing, and math knowledge is not enough, as employers are
looking for employees who are technology literate (Prensky, 2013). The next section will
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 18

discuss the emergence of new technologies and technology integration in K-12 schools.
Technology in K-12 Schools
In recent years new technologies have emerged that create new possibilities for
education, learning and pedagogy. The emergence of new technology is potentially
helping to realize new contexts, opportunities and resources for creativity and creative
education. Over the past several decades new technologies added in school settings have
created an arsenal of tools available for learning (Ely, 2008). These new technologies
have caused and continue to cause teaching and learning strategies and traditional
educational paradigms to evolve and change along with the field of instructional
technology (Ely, 2008).
As a result of changes in availability and pricing over the past thirty years, access
to the Internet and computers in schools and homes have increased (Dunleavy, Dexter &
Heinecke, 2007). The advancement of the Internet has revolutionized computer use in
education. Internet use continues to provide students and educators the opportunity to
connect with others around the world, gather information online, and communicate in
new formats such as e-mail and Web conferencing system that allows educators in
different cities or parts of the world attend meetings, collaborate and trade files (Fingal,
2009). Furthermore, video sharing sites such as YouTube have had a large impact on
what educators call the “flipped classroom model.” Bergman (2011), explains that
through the flipped classroom model, students watch recorded video lectures and lessons
at home on digital devices, and then work with concepts in peer groups or one-on-one
with their instructors. Another internet-based tool being used in schools is the cloud-
based document interactions services such as Google Apps. Nevin (2009) explains that
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 19

interaction, collaboration and assessment are all enhanced when working with Google
Apps, which allows students to create documents that can be viewed, edited and shared
with numerous people globally without the need to save to hardware or other memory
storage devices.
Educators today have also been using interactive tools such as the SMART Board,
which is an interactive white board that has become a very popular educational tool
across the United States. Marzano (2009) described an interactive whiteboard as “a large
display that connects to a computer and projector. The projector displays the computer’s
desktop onto the board’s surface, where users control the computer with a pen, finger, or
other device” (p. 80). Smith, Higgins, Wall & Miller (2005) and Campbell (2010)
explain that interactive white boards are valuable tools for the classroom, and are
generally well accepted by students and teachers, however their success in the classroom
is dependent upon the teacher’s ability, creativity and knowledge for use.
Digital mobile devices have become a major addition to the classroom since 2010.
Mobile devices enable access to information and tools for learning and productivity.
Mobile devices are increasingly popular due to their affordable cost and increased access
to reliable wireless networks. A 1999 release of Apple’s iPad tablet changed the attitude
of many educators regarding its use in the classroom. Today, 1:1 Tablet programs are
emerging all over the United States. Foote (2012) explains that the use of the iPad
among students and teachers has increased productivity and has reduced the use of paper
in her school. In their study, Murray & Olcese (2011) considered the potential affect the
iPad and its applications might have on teaching and learning in K-12 settings, and found
that while the iPad may be overrated, it offers a multitude of benefits including the
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 20

replacement of textbook content, the relative low cost, and ease in use.
According to Waters (2010), many technology analysts believe success of the
iPad is due to its easy multi-touch interface, already familiar to users of iPhones and iPod
Touch devices, and access to over 250,000 Apps available through the iTunes Store.
Siegle (2013) adds that in addition to the extended battery life of up to 10 hours, lower
weight and cost compared to a laptop, and overall quality and attractive design, the iPad’s
tap and swipe gestures used to manipulate virtual objects on the tablet are similar to the
gestures that children would use on physical objects in the real world. For these reasons,
many schools have begun to purchase iPads for use in classrooms across the United
States. However, there is not enough literature on the impact of the iPad on student
engagement and learning in K-12 schools (Waters, 2010).
21
st
Century Skills
In a press release, U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan (2009) referred to
21
st
Century Skills as “skills that increasingly demand creativity, perseverance, and
problem solving combined with performing well as part of a team.”
The Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (P21), founded in 2002, is a coalition that
promotes infusion of 21
st
Century Skills into U.S. K-12 education. Partnership for 21
st

Century Skills has developed a framework for 21
st
Century learning, which describes the
skills, knowledge, and expertise students need to successfully enter today’s workforce.
The key elements of 21
st
Century learning include: 1) Core subjects and 21
st
Century
themes; 2) Learning and innovation skills; 3) Information, media, and technology skills;
4) and Life and career skills (Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills, 2011).
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 21

There are numerous different descriptions that exist about what 21
st
Century skills
encompass. Silva (2009) notes that the reference to 21
st
Century skills among scholars
and educators can be confusing since so many descriptions exist for this skill set, which
includes life skills, workforce skills, interpersonal skills, applied skills, and non-cognitive
skills. Silva (2009) continues noting that the century-specific label is misleading because
these skills were skills that were discussed in ancient times by Socrates through the 20
th

Century by John Dewey, who proposed an education “grounded in experience,” in which
students interact with the “ever-changing world” (Johnson & Reed, 2008, 13). Dewey
defined an educated person as “one who thinks and reflects before acting, responds
intelligently to a problematic situation and finally assesses the consequences of a chosen
plan of action” (Johnson & Reed, 2008, 14). Undoubtedly, this also describes the 21
st

Century learner. According to Resnick (2010), and Silva (2009), many scholars and
educators believe that there is nothing new about the skills that are labeled as 21
st

Century Skills, as these skills have been taught to select students for centuries (Resnick,
2010).
In 1956, Benjamin Bloom along with a group of educational psychologists
developed a classification of levels of intellectual behavior important in learning. During
the year 2000, Bloom’s taxonomy was revised and updated in relevance to 21
st
Century
Skills. Bloom’s taxonomy is considered to be a foundational and essential element
within the education community, and remains in the forefront today as a focal point for
21
st
Century Skills, as it serves as the backbone of many teaching philosophies that lean
more towards skills rather than content (Larson & Miller, 2011). Larson and Miller
(2011) stress the importance of students’ ability to use technology to research, organize,
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 22

evaluate, and communicate information as part of integrating 21
st
Century Skills into
educational environments.
Common Core
Integration of 21
st
Century Skills into education by incorporating digital
technology is a way to address Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and new learning
at the K-12 level.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort
coordinated by the National Governors Association (NGA) Center and the Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). U.S. Governors, and state education leaders from
48 states developed the CCSS in 2010. The CCSS are a common baseline of state
education standards in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12 (NGA
Center for Best Practices, 2010).
According to the NGA, the CCSS are internationally benchmarked standards that
seek to define the knowledge and skill that students should have to succeed not only in
postsecondary education, but also in the workforce, and in the global society (NGA,
2010). The CCSS integrate some of the same skills described in the 21
st
Century Skills
Frameworks. The CCSS differ from state standards by shifting the focus from specific
content and memorization of facts to a focus on the integration of the four C’s: Critical
Thinking, Communication, Collaboration, and Creativity (Partnership For 21
st
Century
Skills, 2011, b). The CCSS, which are written for mathematics and English language
arts, focus on the content students should learn, not how that content is to be taught
(Porter, McMaken, Hwang & Yang, 2011).
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 23

Aligned with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are the two consortia:
the Smarter Balanced Assessment consortium and the Partnership for the Assessment of
Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). These consortia have developed computer-
based assessments systems in the areas of English language arts and mathematics, which
were funded by the U.S. Department of Education in 2010, and implemented at the end of
the 2013-2014 school year (Porter et al. 2011). According to Phillips and Wong (2010),
CCSS shift policy-making in the right direction, as these standards do not specify exactly
how states should use them. The fewer, clearer and higher standards are more
manageable for teachers to use and meant to prepare students for college.
Beach and Baker (2011) address the importance of media literacy in the Common
Core State Standards. They explain that young people lack the critical skills to assess the
validity of online search results. Flanagin and Metzger (2010) found that almost 90
percent of 11 to 18-year-olds believed that the information they found on the Internet was
partially or mostly valid. These young people failed to challenge the accuracy or
efficiency of the information they found on the Web, particularly in dramas, political
advertising, news broadcasts and specific products. Based on this, Beach and Baker
(2011) assert that in order for the youth to be competent communicators in the 21
st

Century, the Common Core Standards should also incorporate a focus on media and
digital literacies, because young people should be better equipped in accessing,
evaluating, and critically analyzing the information and messages conveyed in the media.
Furthermore, the Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (2011, b) lists “Media Literacy” as a
P21 skill aligned with Common Core Standards. For example, an 8
th
grade ELA
Common Core Standard states the following: “Gather relevant information from multiple
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 24

print and digital sources, using search terms effectively; assess the credibility and
accuracy of each source; and quote or paraphrase the data and conclusions of others while
avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citations” (Partnership for 21
st

Century Skills, 2011, p. 17). This standard not only emphasizes critical thinking,
creativity and communication, but it also indicates that the student must have media
literacy in order to access and choose the most credible information for the given topic of
inquiry.
The Common Core State Standards are coherent and are aligned to assessments.
They provide local flexibility where states can determine how best to teach these
standards. These standards place a greater emphasis on higher order cognitive demand,
which encourage creativity, innovation, and literacy. Most importantly, the CCSS
encourage students to be able to apply learning to transfer learning from one context to
another and measure up to international standards (Phillips & Wong, 2010).
Impact of Technology on Education
Technology has certainly changed the way we live. It has impacted different
facets of life, redefined living, and revolutionized the field of education. Technology
integration was an integral part of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. NCLB was a
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), signed into law
by President Bush in 2002. NCLB emphasized the closing of the achievement gap for
students from different socio-economic backgrounds. NCLB has brought significant
changes to schools in the U.S. including the integration and use of technological tools for
promoting maximum learning for students.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 25

Technology integration was an integral component of ESEA. The central
objective of Title II, Part D of the ESEA was to improve student academic achievement
through technology use in K-12 schools (ESEA, Title II, Part D, 2001). The Title II Part
D legislation also provided a foundation for states and districts in establishing and
implementing innovative technology initiatives to increase teacher and student access to
technology. This made way in the integration of technology into curricula. Furthermore,
the legislation promoted continuous professional development for educators alike (ESEA,
Title II, Part D, 2001). “Federal legislation in the United States currently mandates that
technology be integrated into school curricula because of the popular belief that learning
is enhanced through the use of technology” (Davies, 2011, p. 45).
Technology integration and its impact on education is dependent on the type of
technologies brought into practice by teachers and other educators. The types of
technologies used within schools and classrooms include interactive white boards,
projection for video integration, and Microsoft programs such as PowerPoint and Word.
In addition, one-to-one computing, and the use of Internet collaborative resources, such
as blogging, is also used by teachers. Schools in the United States are distributing iPads
and similar portable devices in order to be able to integrate interactive educational
applications, as things make more sense to young people when they could engage and
manipulate objects by controlling them digitally (Murray & Olcese, 2011; Saine, 2012;
Reich, 2013). There are positive and negative aspects of technology integration, which
will be discussed in the following sections.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 26

Positive Aspects
There is a large body of evidence in the literature on the positive aspects of
technology integration on student achievement (Davies, 2011; Cantrell, Liu, Leverington
& Taylor, 2007; Hancock, Knezek & Christensen, 2007). Cantrell, Lui, Leverington &
Taylor (2007) suggest that in terms of factual and conceptual knowledge, student
achievement increases as the level of technology interactivity increases. Furthermore,
Davies (2011) and Hew & Brush (2007) assert that when technology is integrated for
instruction and learning, students gain the knowledge in core subject areas while
acquiring the skills necessary to be productive and competitive in the workplace.
Pearson, Ferdig, Blomeyer, and Moran (2008) concluded that reading comprehension
was positively impacted by technology among struggling middle school readers.
Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills (2012) report that technology integration has a positive
effect on student engagement, increased student learning, motivation, better school
attendance, parental satisfaction with the school system, enriched 21
st
century skills, and
improved ability to meet the diverse needs of all stakeholders, including students,
teachers, and parents. Musawi (2011) discusses the shifting role of technology in
education. Musawi (2011) highlights the three emerging roles of technology as the
medium/resource role, which refers to e-books and mobile devices, management role to
maximize productivity, and delivery role such as Blackboard and Moodle to deliver
content. With his solid arguments, Musawi (2011) suggests that educational technology
is no longer a sole medium, but rather a major component of the educational system.
These positive effects of technology integration encourage increased efforts of educators
toward incorporating more innovative technologies into teaching and learning.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 27

Negative Aspects
While there have been significant amounts of literature on the benefits of
technology integration in the classroom, which has yielded to positive student outcomes,
there have been other studies that argue against this assertion. Mitchell, Bailey, and
Monroe (2007) examined three geometry classes taught by the same teacher. The teacher
taught the first class in traditional ways, utilized presentation software and the Internet
with the second class, and the third class utilized student-created instructional materials.
Mitchell et al. (2007) found that there were no significant differences in student
achievement between the three classes. In addition, the teacher felt that the time needed
for the use of technology would decrease student achievement (Mitchell, Bailey, &
Monroe, 2007). Furthermore, Chandra & Lloyd (2008) conducted a study where the
same technology was implemented in two different schools, and found contrasting
results. Student achievement was dependent upon whether or not the teachers modified
instruction by using the software for future lessons. Means (2010) supports this by
explaining that contrasting effects of the same technology are seen at different schools,
which is based on the quality of the implementation of the technology. According to Lei
(2010), it is difficult to convince teachers on the value of technology integration because
of the differing and conflicting results in regards to technology integration and student
achievement.
Barriers and Issues
Educators often face many barriers in discovering, testing, evaluating, and
ultimately adopting or implementing new technology. As public education aims to
deliver tools and skills to help students with 21
st
Century Skills, to become successful in
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 28

life and society, facing some barriers to the use and implementation of technology can be
predicted. The effective use of technology in the classroom however, is dependent upon
the teacher’s knowledge of the use of technology and willingness to incorporate the
technology into his/her lessons. Based on a study conducted by Petriashvili (2012), the
reasons for unsuccessful use of technology include lack of technological skills, difficulty
in navigating the web, and lack of trainings. Petriashvili (2012) recommends that in
order to have a balanced use of technology, there needs to be more trainings and
workshops for integrating technology into courses.
Previous studies have listed time, access to resources, self-efficacy, on-going
professional development and support as some of the barriers toward technology
integration (Hartsell, Herron, Houbin & Rathod, 2010). Other studies have found age,
demographics and years of teaching to be barriers teachers have reported as reasons they
are unable of using mobile devices as tools of instruction (Holden & Rada, 2010). The
internationally recognized National Media Consortium (NMC) Horizon Report, a
comprehensive research venture that identifies and describes new technologies likely to
have a large impact over the coming five years in education around the globe, identified
some significant challenges schools face in adopting any new technology. Of the six
highest ranked challenges they have identified in their 2013 report, the first two are: lack
of professional development opportunities for teachers, and teachers’ resistance to
experiment with new and innovative technologies (Johnson, Adams Becker, Cummins,
Estrada, Freeman, & Ludgate, 2013). In this study, the following barriers will be
identified and described: teacher resistance, lack of professional development and on-
going support for teachers.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 29

Teacher Resistance
As schools move toward utilizing more innovative ways to educate students, one
of the major problems they face is human resistance toward the integration of technology.
Bingimals (2009) found that although teachers had a strong desire for integrating
technology into their classrooms, they encountered many barriers, one of which was
having an inherent resistance. Teachers are at the heart of the technological divide that
exists in schools, as they are expected to continually enhance their teaching methodology
by all means, including technologically. While teachers need to adapt to new and
enhanced technology, the problems are deeper than teacher resistance alone. “Resistance
to change seems not to be a barrier itself; instead, it is an indication that something is
wrong” (Bingimlas, 2009, P. 238).
In their efforts to study the barriers related to the integration of technology in K-
12 schools, Hew and Bush (2007) examined six categories of barriers in the United
States. Two of these categories were related to teachers’ behavior: the lack of specific
knowledge and skills about technology integration, and attitudes and beliefs toward
technology. Similarly, Bingimals (2009) found that teachers’ lack of confidence and
competence, or having negative attitudes contributed to their resistance to integrate
technology into the curriculum. Furthermore, teachers may not be receiving a hands-on
professional development, which puts a focus on the usefulness of technological devices
and their application on learning, which adds to the teachers’ lack of skill and negative
attitudes toward the use of technology (Judge & O’Bannon, 2008). Hartsell et al. (2010)
suggested that when professional development is limited to training on how to use the
tool, teacher learning becomes exclusive to the device; however, when the training
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 30

involves hands-on practice using the device, teacher confidence builds and the probability
of using the device within their classrooms increases significantly, especially with on-
going support. The next section will discuss the role of professional development on
teachers’ integration of technology.
Professional Development
The need for teacher professional development and training was one of the
consistent factors identified in the research inhibiting the effective integration and
implementation of technology into the classroom (Johnson et al., 2013; Hartsell et al.,
2010; Judge & O’Bannon, 2008). In order to facilitate the effective use and integration
of technology, the NCLB Act, Title II Part D, encouraged the development of research-
based instructional models through teacher professional development and training
(ESEA, Title II, Part D, 2001).
Technology is a fundamental element of 21
st
Century education. Preparation and
continued professional development for educators for integration of technology in their
schools and classrooms is imperative for shaping today’s schools. Students are
technologically savvy and are ready to learn with the latest innovations, but it is their
teachers who require support for understanding when and how to integrate technology in
their everyday teaching to engage students and enrich their experiences (Johnson, Levine,
Smith, & Smythe, 2009; Lenhart, Madden, Smith & Macgill, 2007).
Technology integration requires the obtaining of new skills, dispositions, and
competencies (Ru-De, 2010). Teachers must have basic knowledge of computer skills,
professional competencies and up-to-date theories of learning and instruction in order to
be able to integrate technology into their classrooms (Ru-De, 2010). In addition, Davies
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 31

(2011) stresses the importance of teachers’ knowledge of the basic purpose of available
technologies for meaningful integration into the curriculum. According to the research,
the inability to integrate technology into classroom practices has been attributed to the
lack of professional development (Overbaugh & Lu, 2008; Plair, 2008; Wetzel, Foulger,
& Williams, 2008). Researchers suggest that there is a direct relationship between
professional development in technology and the level of technology integration for
teaching and learning (Overbaugh & Lu, 2008; Plair, 2008; Wetzel et al., 2009).
Additionally, researchers have found that long-term, situated professional development
such as mentoring, can improve teacher attitudes about using technology for learning
(Hixon & Buckenmyer, 2009; Wells, 2007). Kopcha (2012) studied teachers’
perceptions of the barriers to technology integration such as access, vision, professional
development, time and beliefs. He found that by offering professional development
activities, teachers engaged in desirable instructional practices over time. The
professional development activities created an environment that supported teachers’
decisions to integrate technology.
On-going support
Professional development and training provided to teachers will not serve its
purpose if technological tools and devices do not operate properly in their classrooms.
Holden & Rada (2011) report that when devices do not work in the classroom, a decrease
in teacher self-efficacy or negative attitude due to the malfunctioning device may cause
them to decide to not use the devices. Brinkerhoff (2006) found that teachers who have
malfunctioning equipment in their classrooms, and lack confidence in using technology,
may feel embarrassed in front of their students which may increase their apprehension
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 32

about integration of technology in the curriculum. However, Shapley, Sheehan,
Maloney, and Caranikas-Walker (2010) suggest that when teachers know that there is a
technology specialist or technician available at their school site to help or troubleshoot
with any technology-related issues or problems, their confidence will increase which may
encourage them to continue to use the technology within the curriculum. Furthermore,
Ramirez (2011) found that teachers’ attitudes toward technology integration will become
much more positive if the technology technicians on their campuses are well trained and
continue to receive training on the use of the variety of technologies available at their
school sites.
Teacher Ideology, Attitudes and Beliefs
Teachers’ decisions to integrate technology is based heavily on the level of
support they receive, their own beliefs and ideology about using technology for teaching
and learning, and their skills with using technology within the curriculum (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross &
Specht, 2008). In a study conducted by Kopcha (2012), teachers within a community
transitioned from full-time mentoring for teaching with technology, including extensive
modeling, one-on-one planning and technical support from peers within the community,
to teacher-led communities of practice over a two-year period. These teachers adopted a
number of desirable practices and routines and continued to plan and implement
technology-infused lessons thereafter with decreased support for over one school year.
This proved that working together in an organization and an environment with continued
support and professional development in technology use for instruction, these teachers
sustained positive attitudes, beliefs and better instructional practices with the use of
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 33

technology over time. The benefits of working together in a community is supported by
Clark and Estes (2008) who maintain that cultural, contextual, and organizational causes
inevitably filter and affect all attempts to improve people’s performance. Scott and
Palincsar (2006) explain Russian psychologist Lev Vigotsky’s perspective on the
interdependence of learning and development in the social context. They explain, based
on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, that learning/mental development takes place when
people are working and interacting with each other in social or organized activities, in
which the locus of knowledge is based in social interactions. Hence, in the organizational
culture, as teachers participate in joint activities, they internalize the effects of working
together, and acquire new strategies and knowledge.
Holden and Rada (2011) found that positive teacher attitudes yielded to increased
confidence and motivation toward technology use. According to motivation, based on
the self-efficacy theory, people will work harder and longer when they judge themselves
as capable of performing a task than when they judge themselves as unable to perform a
task. Thus, self-efficacy is a kind of personal expectation concerning one’s capabilities
to accomplish a task (Mayer, 2008). Bandura (1997) defines self-efficacy as one’s
confidence in his or her ability to organize and execute a given course of action to solve a
problem or accomplish a task. Clark and Estes (2008) state that when people do not
believe they can achieve a goal or perform a task, they will not choose to tackle it.
Similarly, Mayer (2008) states that when people perceive themselves as having
confidence in their own capabilities to perform tasks, they will work harder. Under this
premise, it can be deducted that teachers who believe they can effectively integrate
technology into teaching and learning are more likely to do so.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 34

Researchers Lin and Lu (2010) examined the influence of self-efficacy on
technology integration. They examined the factors that have an impact on teachers’
implementation of technology into their classrooms. They also examined the effects of
teachers’ self-efficacy on their commitment to integrating technology into the curriculum.
Lin and Lu (2010) also found that a supportive environment reinforced the integration of
technology into the classroom. They found that teachers were more committed to
incorporating technology into their classrooms when their self-efficacy was coupled with
perceived value for technology integration (Lin & Lu, 2010). Thus, integration of
technology into the classroom is a complex process, which embodies teacher ideology,
attitudes and beliefs in its core.
School Climate and Leadership
Teacher ideology change is dependent upon the school leadership. School
leadership plays an integral role in creating a supportive environment for technology use
(Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The school leadership must create a shared vision
where best practices in teaching and learning include the use of technology (Ertmer &
Ottenbreith-Leftwich, 2010). Effective technology integration can be achieved when
schools and districts have a clear vision, a precise definition of, and commitment to
technology integration from school leadership (Buckenmeyer, 2010; Wang, 2010). The
research by Wang (2010) reveals that when administrators value and invest in technology
use, there is a much higher likelihood that their staff will buy into it as well. Ramirez Jr.
(2011) states that since administrators have the ability to create policies and set goals for
technology integration, they have the capability to fund technology, propose specific
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 35

teacher training programs for technology integration, and to evaluate performance based
on their use of technology (Ramirez Jr. 2011).
Schrum and Levin (2013) found that when the leadership of a school or district
identifies the effective implementation of technology as an integral part of continuous
school improvement, professional development and training will become important
aspects of the school culture. When teachers are given the support and opportunity to set
goals for technology integration, they are more likely to demonstrate positive changes in
that area (Somekh, 2008). Wang (2010) stated, “technology integration is far more
complicated than just purchasing hardware and software.” Wang’s (2010) study revealed
that with the absence of the school principal’s vision and commitment, the integration of
technology would not be possible even with a staff of highly motivated teachers with an
enthusiastic approach for technology use and integration (Wang, 2010). Hence, the
success of technology integration is dependent upon the school leadership.
Conclusions
According to the research, teachers admit that they do not know how to use the
technologies that are given to them in schools, and without the training they require for
effective technology use, they become less confident in their attempts for integrating any
technology component (Fang, Hartsell, Herron, & Rathod, 2010). There is research
suggesting that long-term, situated professional development such as mentoring, can
improve teacher attitudes about using technology for learning (Hixon & Buckenmyer,
2009; Wells, 2007).
The literature review in this chapter addressed the history and background of
technology in schools as it related to the technology in K-12 schools, 21
st
Century skills,
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 36

and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The Literature review addressed the
impact technology has had on education, its positive and negative aspects and the types
of barriers and issues educators face in adopting or implementing new technologies, such
as teacher resistance, lack of professional development and on-going support for teachers.
The literature review also addressed teacher ideology, attitudes and beliefs toward
technology integration into teaching and learning. Finally, the literature review
addressed school climate and the important role leadership plays in changing teacher
ideology and in creating a supportive environment for technology use.
In order to transform education through the integration of technology for teaching
and learning, certain changes need to take place (Hall, 2010). On-going and continued
support and professional development in technology use for instruction, can lead to
increased confidence for technology integration. The perceived confidence and self-
efficacy, coupled with supportive leadership, can lead to educational transformation.
This qualitative study will identify the impact of technology on teaching and
learning practices in a high-technology use elementary school. This case study will add
to the existing literature by identifying how an elementary technology magnet school has
adopted technology use and integration into their curriculum. The information in this
case study will help educators identify key elements of successful and effective
technology integration and use into the classroom.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 37

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Introduction
Purpose
As the world changes, and as the focus in schools shifts toward preparing students
for success in this global economy, there is growing need for improved methods of
instruction in all subject areas. According to Dettelis (2010), when computer technology
first originated, it was considered to be a tool for creating and formatting programs.
Internet connectivity in the 1990’s and the wireless tool in the year 2000 forced a rapid
change toward technology integration in schools and classrooms as a means to support
student achievement (Dettelis, 2010; Sugar & Brown, 2008; Mishra, Koehler &
Kerelwik, 2009). As technology continues to rapidly advance, Prensky (2013) explains
that schools must prepare students for a world that has become greatly dependent on
technology. The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of technology on
teaching and learning practices in a high technology use K-12 school.
This case study examined practices that support the successful integration of
technology in teaching and learning practices at a high performing urban elementary
technology magnet school in Southern California. This case study was developed to
examine the ways in which the aforementioned elementary school has integrated and
implemented technology use into their classrooms. This case study will help educators
identify key elements of successful and effective technology integration and use into the
classroom.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 38

Research Questions
The research questions for this study aimed at providing descriptive information
about the types and uses of technology, its perceived impact on teaching and learning and
the supports available for the successful integration of technology. Hence, the following
three research questions were developed by the thematic dissertation group which focus
on the aspects of a school’s system for technology integration and its impact on teaching
and learning. This study specifically focused on answering the following 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?
Research Design
Method
In conducting this study, qualitative methods were chosen because they were the
appropriate strategy to answer the research questions. According to Merriam (2009),
qualitative methods provide a thick and rich description of people’s experiences as
qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret their
experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their
experiences. Maxwell (2013) describes five kinds of intellectual goals for which
qualitative studies are especially suited. The first of the five goals is the understanding
the meaning of events, situations, experiences, and actions the participants are involved
with or engage in. For this study, the researcher was interested in gathering evidence on
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 39

the types of technology present and its use as a tool of instruction, its perceived impact on
teaching and learning, and the school climate as a support system for the integration of
the technology.
Thematic Dissertation Group
This study is one of 11 dissertations developed in a thematic dissertation group.
The purpose of this research was to conduct a case study to identify the impact of
technology on teaching and learning practices in a high technology use K-12 school. The
thematic group identified current models used in instruction that incorporate teaching and
learning with technology. The thematic group worked collaboratively to generate the
purpose of the study, the three research questions, the criteria for selecting a school, the
research design, and created the data collection instruments. Each member of the
thematic group worked independently and conducted a qualitative study based on their
school of choice. Each member of the thematic group chose a K-12 school in California
as a focus of their study, and looked at the technology integration practices of each
school, and its impact on teaching and learning.
Theoretical Framework
After examining the different types of conceptual frameworks pertaining to the
integration of technology into teaching and learning, the thematic group chose to adapt
the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) as a theoretical
framework, “a framework for teacher knowledge for technology integration” as described
by Koehler and Mishra (2009). Koehler and Mishra (2009) argue that as a part of good
teaching with technology, there are three main components, which are, content,
pedagogy, and technology, and the relationship between them (Koehler and Mishra,
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 40

2009). Koehler and Mishra (2009) explain that the interaction between these three
components yields to variations seen in technology integration in education. In other
words, technology can be used in a wide range of ways and in a realm of content areas.
Teachers must be able to choose and determine which types of technologies are
appropriate to use in a given setting to enhance student learning.
An important factor found to have a significant effect on teacher technology
integration is the construct of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, as described earlier, in the
literature review section of this study, is one’s confidence in his or her ability to organize
and execute a given course of action to solve a problem or accomplish a task (Bandura,
1997). According to Lin and Lu’s (2010) research, which examined the influence of self-
efficacy on technology integration, teachers were more committed to incorporating
technology into their classroom when their self-efficacy was coupled with perceived
value for technology integration.
Another important factor that predicts effective use of technology in the
classroom is the TPACK construct. Niess (2011) stated “today’s teachers must utilize
TPACK strategic thinking as they plan and prepare to guide students in exploring content
topics with technologies. The wickedness of the problem is contained in this question:
How and when do teachers develop this TPACK strategic thinking and ability if they
have not learned the content with these technologies?” (p. 308) Thus, TPACK is an
important factor to presume effective use of technology in the classroom (Niess, 2011).
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 41

The figure above shows the TPACK framework, and its knowledge components.
The three main components of teachers’ knowledge are content, pedagogy, and
technology. Interactions between these bodies of knowledge shown as Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK), Technology Content Knowledge (TCK), Technology
Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) and TPACK are equally important. Utilizing TPACK as
the theoretical framework in this study helped the researcher in looking at a complex
phenomenon in a more structured and coherent way. The area in the above figure this
study focused on is the intersection, the “middle circle” or the central part of the three
domains called TPACK. This central part is the most effective way that teachers will be
able to transform their teaching and learning to integrate technology in the classroom.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 42

Population and Sample
Context
This is a case study of a setting using actual theories and research references. All
names, organizations, and locations are identified with pseudonyms but all case study
setting related data is real.
Pacific Tech Magnet Elementary School (PTM) is located in Mountain Unified
School District (MUSD), an urban school district, in the county of Los Angeles, in the
state of California. PTM is one of twenty elementary schools with grades Kindergarten
through 6
th
in MUSD. The student enrollment at PTM is 865. PTM is a Title I school,
which implies that a high percentage of the student population comes from low-income
families and qualify for free and reduced lunch program. The ethnic composition of the
current student population is 51% Hispanic or Latino, 32% White, 9% Filipino, 3%
Asian, 2% African American, and 2% two or more races (WASC report 2010). AT PTM
27% of students are considered to be English Learners (EL), and 77% are classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged (School Accountability Report Card, [SARC] 2010).
The staff at PTM consists of 34 fully credentialed teachers, 31 support staff, 1
school psychologist, 1 teacher specialist, a principal, an assistant principal, 3 technology
staff, which includes, 1 technology integration specialist, 1 technology teacher, and 1
technology clerk. PTM’s Annual Performance Index (API) score is 853. The API score
is a California State accountability system for kindergarten through grade twelve public
education in California. The API is a single number, ranging from a low of 200 to a high
of 1000, which reflects a school’s or a district’s performance level, based on the results of
statewide assessments. Its purpose is to measure the academic performance and
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 43

improvement of schools. California has set 800 as the API target for all schools to meet
(California Department of Education, [CDE] 2013). Hence, based on this, PTM’s API
score is considered to be above average.
Sample
For this study, three types of purposeful sampling were used to identify
appropriate respondents. The types of purposeful sampling were unique sampling,
convenience sampling and network sampling. Merriam (2009) states that unique
sampling is based on unique and rare attributes of the elements or areas of interest. In
addition, Merriam (2009) also states that network sampling, which is the most common
form of purposeful sampling, involves locating key participants who then will refer the
researcher to other similar participants. Furthermore, Merriam (2009) states that
convenience sampling is when a sample of respondents is selected based on time, money,
location, availability, etc. The goal was to interview, observe and survey teachers who
incorporate technology in their daily lessons.
Selection Criteria
The thematic dissertation group identified 7 different criteria, and determined that
each chosen school must meet 5 of the 7 criteria to be eligible for this study. The
following table outlines the 7 school selection criteria, and indicates the equivalent of the
school selected for this study, Pacific Tech Magnet:
School Selection Criteria Pacific Tech Magnet
1) An API ranking of 7 or better, for 3 or
more consecutive years.
The API ranking of Pacific Tech Magnet is
an 8, and its API score is 853.
2) Structured technology plan PTM has a structured technology plan and
curriculum
3) Evidence of technology grant(s), or
similar
PTM was awarded a Technology Grant
4) Evidence of research-based practice in As part of being a technology magnet
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 44

technology. school, PTM has a research-based
technology plan used by the staff.
5) Mission statement referencing
technology
In addition to its mission statement, PTM
also maintains a technology mission
statement which states: “The technology
mission of Pacific Tech Magnet is to assure
that learners can adapt to the challenges of
the 21
st
century through the access and
utilization of technology in gathering,
using, and communicating information in
order to make responsible decisions as
global citizens.”
6) Minimum of 400 students (K-12 school) PTM current 2013-2014 student population
is 865 students.
7) Recognition(s), i.e., Hi Tech Network,
California Distinguished School, Apple
Distinguished School, and the like.
PTM’s recognitions are: California
Distinguished School 2010 and 2014; Title
I Achieving School; CABE Seal of
Excellence School 2014; International
Spanish Academy
Fig 2. Study site selection criteria.
Pacific Tech Magnet (PTM) met 7 of the 7 selection criteria. All students at PTM
are included in the Technology Program made possible through a grant by the Magnet
School Assistance Program of the U.S. Department of Education. The goals of the
technology program are to develop technologically advanced students who can
competently utilize multimedia and productivity tools to complete everyday tasks; to
increase the effectiveness of the teaching process with the use of state-of-the-art
educational technology; to produce 21
st
century critical thinkers, problem solvers, and
information seekers who can compete on a global level. At PTM, students attend formal
computer classes every week, led by PlanetBravo. PTM partners with PlanetBravo to
provide two types of Technology Curriculum: 1) Integrated Core Technology Curriculum
for grades K-6; and 2) Advanced Project-Based Lab Curriculum for grades 2-6. In
addition to the computer classes with an advanced technology curriculum, students are
engaged and surrounded by technology in their classrooms through the use of interactive
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 45

whiteboards, student response systems, and mobile laptop carts, to name a few. Some
examples of the areas students study in the advanced formal curriculum are: podcasting;
video editing; animation; programming; desktop publishing; blogs and wikis; web design;
e-mail; word processing; slideshow creation; responsible use and safety; and Internet
research. All students at PTM must have a current Electronic Information Services User
Responsibility Contract on file.
In addition to being a Technology Magnet School, PTM is also a K-6 Spanish
Dual Immersion school. In the Dual Spanish Immersion Program, Spanish is used as the
primary language of instruction. Dual Language Immersion Program at PMT offers a
unique opportunity for both native English-speaking children and Spanish-speaking
children to work together to develop academic fluency in both English and Spanish.
PTM was recently recognized as an International Spanish Academy (ISA) under the
Spanish Consulate. At PTM, when students enter the program in Kindergarten or 1
st

grade, 90% of the instruction is in Spanish and 10% in English. Eventually instruction
becomes 50% in each language by fifth grade. Participation in this program is voluntary.
Instrumentation
The use of multiple forms of data for triangulation was used to validate the results
of the study. This study used the following forms of multiple data: observations, surveys,
interviews and document analysis. According to Merriam (2009), triangulation remains a
principal strategy to ensure for validity and reliability, the validity and reliability of a
study depend on the ethical stance of the investigator. In addition, according to Maxwell
(2013), multiple sources and methods give conclusions that are far more credible than
being limited to one source or method. The research instruments were developed by the
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 46

thematic dissertation group, and were supported by findings in the current research
literature (see Appendix A-E for each research instrument). These research instruments
were designed to support confirmation of the findings through triangulation. However,
they were developed to obtain different information and limit redundancy.
The research instruments were also developed to sort responses into categories
developed by Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Four Frames. As part of the reflective process,
the Four Frames were used to reflect on examples of leadership within the school and
classroom settings that demonstrate the Political Frame, Symbolic Frame, Structural
Frame, and Human Resources Frame. Each of the instruments used were aligned with
the three research questions and in relation to each of the Four Frames.
Interview Instruments
The thematic dissertation group created two interview instruments, one for
teachers, and one for administrators. Both interview protocols were aligned with the
research questions. The teacher interview protocol inquired on the teachers’ perceptions
on the integration of technology at their school. The administrator interview protocol
inquired on the administrators’ perception of how the school as a whole embraced
technology integration.
The interview protocols included open-ended and less structured questions.
According to Maxwell (2013), less structured questions allow the researcher to focus on
the particular phenomena being studied, which may differ between respondents based on
individual experiences, which reveal the processes that led to specific outcomes.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 47

Observation Instrument
According to Merriam (2009), observations take place in the setting where the
phenomenon of interest naturally occurs, and they represent a firsthand encounter with
the phenomenon of interest rather than a secondhand account of the world obtained in an
interview. In addition, according to Maxwell (2013), observations are used to describe
settings, behavior, and events, while interviews are used to understand the perspectives
and goals of stakeholders. Furthermore, according to Maxwell (2013), observations can
enable the researcher to draw inferences about certain perspectives that would not be
obtained through interview alone. The observation protocol for this study was based on
the research questions and provided the researcher with information on the classroom
layout, the technology equipment available, teacher resources, the organizational
structure and the supports available for technology integration.
Survey and Document Review Instruments
The survey protocol, which was based on the research questions for this study,
was administered to teachers described above at the Pacific Tech Magnet (PTM) to
discover how they perceive technology access, technology policies, technology
integration and instruction, including their perceptions on the impact of technology and
the supports available for its integration at their school site.
The document review protocol was also based on the research questions for this
study. Merriam (2009) states that “the term document is used as an umbrella term to
refer to a wide range of written, visual, digital, and physical material relevant to the study
at hand” (p. 139). Furthermore, documents are all forms of data gathered outside of
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 48

interviews and observations (Merriam, 2009). The documents collected from PTM
helped the researcher discover clues and insights relevant to the research problem.
The Four Frames
As stated earlier, as part of the reflective process, the Four Frames were used to
reflect on examples of leadership within the school and classroom settings that
demonstrate the Political Frame, Symbolic Frame, Structural Frame, and Human
Resources Frame. Bolman and Deal (2003) suggest that organizations function through a
combination of these Four Frames, or perspectives. The political, symbolic, structural
and human resources frames were used in this study as lenses to look through at the
aspects of this organization to provide a meaningful description and understanding on the
daily operations of PTM and suggest areas that may require change.
Bolman and Deal’s (2003) Structural Frame looks at the prevailing circumstances
and considers the organization’s goals, strategies, technology, and environment. As the
organization needs people, and the people need the organization, the Human Resources
Frame highlights the relationship between people and the organization. The Political
Frame focuses on the relationship between the dominant group in an organization and the
rest of the members of the organization. The Political Frame in this study looked at the
roles of all stakeholders at PTM and how they support the integration of technology. The
Symbolic Frame focused on the many uses of symbol, such as beliefs, values, and vision,
which give meaning and direction to organizational life. The Symbolic Frame looked at
the role the school culture at PTM played in the integration of technology.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 49

Data Collection
Data collection took place at Pacific Tech Magnet Elementary School over a
period of 6 days. Additional information was obtained through phone interviews, e-mail,
websites, and document review.
Document Review Method
Document review allowed the researcher to inspect official information that had
been provided by the school to investigate the Technology Program offerings and to
determine appropriate respondents for interview and observation. Furthermore, through
document review, the researcher was able to identify the curricular elements,
organizational structures and perceived student outcomes of a school that embraces
technology. The researcher conducted a document review of the school’s electronic and
hard copy materials. The documents collected included printouts of the school website,
the school’s two mission statements, as PTM has a separate mission statement for their
technology program, technology plan, technology curriculum, policies and procedures,
programs and services, school’s report card, API and AYP information, professional
development plan, and the document review protocol. All documents collected aligned
with the research questions.
Interview Methods
For this case study, three types of purposeful sampling were used to identify
appropriate respondents. The types of purposeful sampling were unique sampling,
convenience sampling and network sampling. Merriam (2009) states that unique
sampling is based on unique and rare attributes of the elements or areas of interest. In
addition, Merriam (2009) also states that network sampling, which is the most common
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 50

form of purposeful sampling, involves locating key participants who then will refer the
researcher to other similar participants. Furthermore, Merriam (2009) states that
convenience sampling is when a sample of respondents is selected based on time, money,
location, availability, etc. The goal was to interview teachers to obtain their perceptions
on the integration of technology at their school, and to interview administrators to
understand their perception of how the school as a whole embraced technology
integration.
The three aforementioned purposeful samplings were used in the following ways:
Convenience sampling was used because the researcher was employed in the same
district, and had previously worked closely with Pacific Tech Magnet (PTM). Unique
sampling was used because the researcher was interested in interviewing teachers who
incorporated technology in their daily lessons and worked at a school, which met at least
5 of the 7 selection criteria previously discussed in this chapter. Finally, network
sampling was used because the researcher was referred by the first responder, who was
the principal of the school, to other participants at PTM.
Process of Obtaining Consent
Obtaining consent is one of the most important tools in qualitative research as it
involves clearly explaining the project to potential study participants, and ensures respect
for the participants during research. According to The Belmont Report of the National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subject of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research (1979), informed consent is a mechanism for ensuring that people understand
what it means to participate in a particular research study so they can decide in a
conscious, deliberate way whether they want to participate.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 51

To obtain consent for this study, potential participants were contacted through e-
mail. The e-mails contained information on the purpose of this study, central research
questions, and reasons explaining the interest in this topic, and a request to conduct the
interviews. The e-mail also contained the Information/Facts Sheet For Non-Medical
Research, which explained the purpose of the study, information on participant
involvement, confidentiality, and the researcher’s contact information, as an attachment.
These potential participants were also asked about the best time and place for them to
participate in the interviews. All participants responded to the e-mail with their consent
to participate in the interviews. These response e-mails were printed and kept by the
researcher. The participants also included the best day, time and location for them to be
interviewed. Coincidentally, the teachers chose to be interviewed in their own
classrooms. All participants were interviewed following the protocol as designed.
Approach to Capturing Data
Data was collected through the interview process, with the e-mailed consent of
the participants. In addition, the researcher asked for the participants’ permission to
allow audio recording of the interviews. Interviews were conducted with the two
administrators: the principal and assistant principal, four teachers who actively
incorporate technology into their lessons on a daily basis, the teacher specialist, and the
technology technician. According to Merriam (2009), participants usually enjoy sharing
their expertise with an interested and sympathetic listener. For this reason, as Merriam
(2009) suggests, the researcher created good rapport with the participants by asking basic
descriptive information about themselves, the subjects they taught, the length of time they
had been teaching at the school site, etc., and established a connection with the
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 52

respondents by sharing similar information. The researcher shared information about this
study, and moved on to asking the interview questions.
According to Merriam (2009), there are three basic ways to record interview data.
All three ways of recording data were utilized for this study. The interviews were audio
recorded. In addition, some notes were taken during the interview, mainly on things such
as the respondent’s reactions or body language, or for the purposes of signaling the
importance of certain information given during the interview. Furthermore, as soon after
the interview as possible, more information was written down as the researcher’s
reflections and insights suggested by the interview, descriptive notes on the behavior,
verbal and nonverbal cues of the participant and personal thoughts of the researcher.
Merriam (2009) also explains that transcription of recorded interviews provides the best
database for analysis. For this reason, and for the fact that the information obtained
during the interview was still fresh in the mind of the researcher, the audio recordings
were transcribed within the same day of each of the interviews. The format of the
interview transcript, as suggested by Merriam (2009), was set up to enable analysis, as it
was combined with the notes and comments written down during and immediately after
each interview.
Observation Methods
Observation is used to describe settings, behavior, and events, and can enable the
researcher to draw direct inferences about people’s behavior and the context in which this
occurs (Maxwell, 2013). In order to create triangulation, the location where the
observations were performed, were the classrooms of the same teachers who were
previously interviewed. These observations were done during instructional time. This
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 53

would be the perfect location and the perfect time to do the observations for this case
study, because based on Merriam’s (2009) explanations, observations are conducted to
triangulate emerging findings and used in conjunction with interviews and document
analysis to substantiate the findings. In addition, participants and the physical setting of
the classrooms were observed, including observations done during activities, interactions,
and conversations.
Process of Gaining Entry
Gaining access, according to Bogdan and Biklen (2007), is one of the most
important steps in the observation process. Merriam (2009) identifies gaining entry as
one of the three stages of collecting data through observation. According to Merriam
(2009), gaining entry into a site begins with gaining the confidence and permission of
those who can approve the activity. Since the researcher was an employee in the same
district, and had previously worked with PTM, contacting the “gatekeepers” involved to
conduct observations for this study was fairly easy. The gatekeepers in this case were the
administrators of the school. Having worked closely with the school in the past, made
entry to the school setting smooth and easy. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) point out that the
“gatekeepers” would want answers to the following questions prior to allowing entry:
What the researcher will actually do? Will the researcher be disruptive? What the
researcher will do with the findings? Why the site was chosen for this study? and what
will they (the site) get out of this process? This information was communicated with the
site principal verbally and through e-mail. Since the researcher and the site administrator
already had a good working relationship, access was granted. Once access was granted,
the school administration and the researcher notified the teachers, whose classrooms
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 54

would be observed for this study. The teachers had already met and had spent some time
with the researcher through the interview process and trust and rapport was already
established between the teachers and the researcher. For all observations, the researcher
entered the classrooms, sat at an empty student desk and observed the teacher, the
students and the classroom as a whole for about one hour at a time, which was the
duration of one entire class period. The researcher was already familiar with the setting
of each classroom, as the interviews of the teachers for this study all took place in each of
these classrooms.
Approach to Capturing Data
The researcher used the observation protocol created for this study for all four
observations. During the first observation, the researcher attempted to pay attention to
and record everything that happened in the classroom. Notes were taken on the types of
instructional practices that exist in the classroom, how technology is used and
incorporated in the classroom and in lesson plans, identifying instructional techniques
which were solely dependent on technology, and the way students responded when
technology is used versus when it is not, and how technology influenced student
participation and engagement in the classroom. Merriam (2009) suggests that it is
probably best to do more frequent, shorter observations at first. The more familiar
everything feels and the more comfortable the researcher is in the setting the observation
can be performed for longer periods of time.
Based on this, the researcher decided to do the observations for shorter amounts
of time, and to move around the classroom and shift focus to different areas of the class,
to capture everything that happened in each area. For the next two observations, the
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 55

researcher spent about 30 to 40 minutes, dividing the time into 10-minute increments,
moving from one area of the class to another every 10 minutes. This way, the researcher
felt like a participant in the class, and was able to see and hear student activities based on
the lesson, and see how technology was used by each student as part of the lesson, and
pay close attention to student participation. The researcher did her best not to disrupt the
lesson or the students, and stayed close to the corners of the classroom, however, the
students were very much aware of the researcher’s presence and purpose, and this was
evident through body language, such as looking at the researcher, or periodically turning
to the researcher as to check to see if the researcher was still in the classroom. Based on
student engagement and participation in class activities, the researcher did not feel that
her presence disrupted the students, the teacher, or the class as a whole in any way.
The researcher continued observing and writing down descriptions, memos and
comments based on the research questions and using the observation checklist. Merriam
(2009) suggests writing field notes as soon after each observation as possible. Shortly
after each observation, the researcher spent some time in a quiet place reviewing the
notes taken, and based on those notes wrote a narrative of what exactly was observed.
The field notes included descriptions, direct quotations, and observer comments.
Survey Methods
According to Fink (2013), surveys are information collection methods used to
describe, compare, or explain individuals’ knowledge, feelings, values, preferences, and
behavior. The survey was administered to teachers at PTM to capture their perceptions
of the impact of technology, how technology is incorporated in daily instruction, and the
supports available at the PTM for technology integration. The survey instrument was
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 56

distributed to the teachers at one of their staff meetings by the researcher, and collected
promptly. The survey responses were individually entered in SurveyMonkey, an online
survey system, for easy data analysis. The researcher had initially planned on
distributing the surveys to the teachers through the above mentioned online survey
system, because according to Fink (2013), they can easily reach very large numbers of
people and because online survey software is easily accessible both for researchers, and
responders. However, after speaking to the site principal, the researcher decided to attend
one of the staff meetings, and administer the surveys to the staff in paper format, because
the researcher felt that there may be a higher number of respondents, and the surveys
would be collected immediately. All 34 teachers at PTM were in attendance at the staff
meeting, the surveys were distributed to all 34. Of the 34 distributed surveys, 32 surveys
were collected. Hence, 94% of the teachers at PTM participated in the surveys.
Validity and Reliability
According to Merriam (2009), triangulation remains a principal strategy to ensure
for validity and reliability, the validity and reliability of a study depend on the ethical
stance of the investigator. For this case study, triangulation was employed by using
multiple sources of data, through interviews, and observations. According to Merriam
(2009), triangulation using multiple sources of data means comparing and cross-checking
data collected through observations and interviews done at different times and different
places and with people who might have different perspectives. Reliability, on the other
hand, refers to the extent to which research findings can be replicated. However, as
Merriam (2009) describes, replication of a qualitative study will not yield the same
results, because there can be different interpretations of the same results. Furthermore,
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 57

Merriam (2009) highlights the importance of the results of a study being consistent with
the data collected. By using the Strategies for Promoting Validity and Reliability
checklist provided by Merriam (2009), the researcher made sure that this study had
validity and reliability in the interpretation of the data.
Data Analysis
Approach to Coding Collected Data
Information from this study was collected through the use of survey, interview,
observation and document analysis. According to Merriam (2009), data analysis is the
process of making sense out of data which involves consolidating, reducing, and
interpreting what people have said and what the researcher has seen and read, which all
come together to provide meaning and constitute the findings of a study. In order to
begin the process of making meaning, the information obtained on the interview and
observation protocols had to be coded. Merriam (2009) explains that coding is a way of
organizing and managing data through assigning shorthand designation to various aspects
of the collected data to help the researcher easily retrieve specific pieces of the data.
The researcher followed Merriam’s (2009) suggestions on organizing and labeling
the collected data according to some organizing theme that makes sense to the researcher.
Since the sampling for this study was fairly small, the researcher decided to transcribe the
audio-recorded interviews and type it all up in a Microsoft Word document. Although
this was a small sample, transcribing the interviews was a lot of work. Information from
the observation protocols was also typed in a similar way into a separate Word document.
As the researcher read down through the transcripts, she began the coding process by
jotting down notes, comments, and queries in the margins of the printed pages from
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 58

Microsoft Word. The researcher created categories, as Merriam (2009) suggested, and
identified segments in the data set that were responsive to the research questions. These
segments were identified in the following numerical way:
• 1: Related to research question one in regards to the types of technology
present at the school and its use as a tool of instruction.
• 2: Related to research question two on the perceived impact of
technology on teaching and learning.
• 3: Related to research question three in regards to the school supports for
technology integration, and where leadership comes from.
• 4: This number was used to identify information that was not related to
the research questions for this study.
After going through the documents and utilizing the above-described numbers to
code the data, the lists from both interview and observation data were merged into one
master list of concepts derived from both sets of data. Coding took place on the printed
Microsoft Word document pages using a pencil and different colored highlighters in
order to organize the data. The master list of concepts was like an outline that reflected
the patterns or the categories of this study. These patterns were merged or grouped
together into the themes of this study. These themes were used by the researcher to
develop a qualitative narrative, which gave meaning to the gathered data.
Ethical Considerations
Merriam (2009) explains that the validity and reliability of a study depend upon
the ethics of the researcher. Thus, actual ethical practice is dependent on the researcher’s
own values and ethics. In this study, the researcher was careful in conducting research in
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 59

an ethical manner. The researcher participated in human subject training and application
approval process and followed the University of Southern California Institutional Review
Board (IRB) procedures and regulations to conduct this research. The IRB process
insured that all subjects were protected form harm, including protection of their privacy,
and the notion of informed consent were properly followed. This study did not attempt to
do any research on students and used pseudonyms for the school and the participants in
the study.
Summary
This chapter focused on the methodology utilized in the qualitative case study,
which examined practices that support the successful integration of technology in
teaching and learning practices at a high performing urban elementary technology magnet
school in Southern California, Pacific Tech Magnet (PTM). This case study was
developed to examine the ways in which the PTM has successfully integrated and
implemented technology use into their classrooms. This chapter included an introduction
and the purpose of the study, the three research questions, theoretical framework,
research design, population and sample, instrumentation, data collection procedures,
information on validity and reliability of the study and information on the process of data
analysis. This case study will help educators identify key elements of successful and
effective technology integration and use into the classroom.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 60

CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF DATA
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the impact of technology on
teaching and learning practices in a high-technology use K-12 school. This case study
will add to the existing literature identifying how an elementary technology magnet
school has successfully adopted technology use and integration into their curriculum.
The information in this case study will assist educators in implementing practices and
strategies which will help them in adopting technology for teaching and learning at their
educational institutions in effective ways. This chapter summarizes the findings from the
case study completed at Pacific Tech Magnet Elementary School utilizing the data
obtained by the researcher from surveys, interviews, observations, and document review
and analysis. This chapter will present the findings of this case study from the data
collection and analysis based on the following three research questions:
4. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom.
5. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
6. In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology?
Where does the leadership come from?
As previously stated, these research questions aimed at providing descriptive
information about the types and uses of technology, its perceived impact on teaching and
learning and the supports available for the successful integration of technology.
Methodology
The process of data collection for this case study took place over the course of 6
days at PTM. The researcher followed Merriam’s (2009) Strategies for Promoting
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 61

Validity and Reliability checklist on organizing and labeling the collected data in
preparation to triangulate the data for validity and reliability. Through coding,
organizing, and creating a master list of concepts and categories, patterns were grouped
together into themes that addressed this qualitative study. As previously stated, for this
case study, triangulation was employed by using multiple sources of data through
interviews, observations, surveys and document analysis.
Surveys were administered in paper format to the administrators and teachers
during one of their staff meetings. 94% of the teachers participated in the surveys. Eight
formal interviews were conducted, which included four teachers, two administrators, one
teacher specialist, and one technology clerk. All interview participants had consented to
the interviews and were given the same set of questions. In addition, the four teachers
who were interviewed were also observed in their classrooms during instructional time.
The document analysis included 2012-13 School Accountability Report Card (SARC),
school websites, Technology Plan, National Technology Standards, School Site Plan, and
Tech Needs Document. It is important to note here that at the time of data collection for
this case study, PTM’s three-year $3 million grant for their Technology Program
provided by the Magnet School Assistance Program of the U.S. Department of Education
had just terminated. The final funding had been given to the school in September 2014.
Findings for Research Question Number One
What technology is present at the school and how is it used as a tool of instruction in
the classroom? The first instrument used to gain data on the types of technology present
and how it is used as a tool of instruction in the classroom was completed using the
document review template (see Appendix A). The document review conducted revealed
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 62

that PTM has the following technology equipment: 36 SMART Boards and projectors
(one in each classroom), 37 ELMO document cameras (one in each classroom), student
responders (6 sets of 25), 36 amplification system (one for each teacher), 36 teacher
laptops (one for each teacher), 30 iPads for student use, 40 iPads for teacher use, 60 Net
books on carts, 365 Chromebooks (45 for 2
nd
grade and intervention classes; 40 in Cart A
for 3
rd
grade; 40 in Cart B for 4
th
grade; 120 on 3 carts, available for check-out for any
teacher on campus; 120 for 6
th
graders for one-to-one and take-home use,) 20 flip
cameras, 322 headphones. In addition, every classroom has its own printers, television,
and DVD/VCR player.
Based on the document review conducted (computer lab and cart sign ups)
students at PTM use classroom technology and a computer lab on an every-day basis for
productivity, acceleration of skills, reinforcement of technology lessons, and advanced
enrichment. Grade level technology skills for all students, focused on age appropriate
and developmental activities, are taught in the computer lab where students work weekly
on skills aligned with their grade level curriculum from word processing to multi-media
presentations. As mentioned above, all classrooms are equipped with state-of-the-art
SMART Boards and Elmo document cameras as well as classroom computers with
Internet access.
Document review and analysis also revealed that the three-year, $3 million dollar
grant was used to purchase most of the hardware available at the school, specifically, all
the SMART Boards, projectors, Netbooks, Chromebooks, MacBook Pros, carts and iPads
were all purchased through the grant. The grant was also used to create a partnership
with PlanetBravo. PlanetBravo is a privately owned technology education company in
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 63

Los Angeles that offers computer and technology instruction at the K-8 level. Their
curriculum is based on the National Educational Technology Standards. PlanetBravo
was hired by PTM to create a technology plan and implement that plan for the school.
PlanetBravo provided the school with a technology teacher who was responsible for
delivering the lessons, as well as maintaining the school’s equipment and computer lab.
A technology integration specialist was also hired to deliver tech support and provide
weekly professional development and training on a one-to-one basis to all the teachers.
The technology integration specialist also provided on-going professional development to
groups of teachers on bi-weekly basis, for two consecutive years.
Aside from the technology hardware and software available to all students and
staff, students received their advanced technology instruction in the school’s computer
lab. This is where the computer and technology courses are offered to all students grades
Kindergarten through 6
th
. Here, students are taught the basics of computers (K-1
st
grade),
to the more advanced courses (2
nd
-6
th
grade), such as podcasting, programming, creating
their own video games, movies, apps, and 2D and 3D Animation, to name a few. The
students access the computer lab on a two-week rotation four times in a given school
year. For example, Ms. G’s 3
rd
grade class will sign up for the computer lab, and use it
for one hour every day for two weeks. Classes will have four two-week rotations in one
school year. This was a process put in place by the school administration in order to
provide all the students an equal access to the computer lab throughout a school year.
The survey results were significant in determining the types of technology present
in each teacher’s classroom as well as the length of time and frequency of technology
use. Based on the survey results, all teachers who participated responded that they have
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 64

the same hardware and access to the same software as the rest of the teachers. All
teachers have teacher laptops, SMART boards, projectors, ELMO document cameras,
iPads, student responders, and amplification system in their classrooms. The following
equipment is available on carts on a check-out basis for any teacher or classroom on
campus: student iPads, Netbooks, MacBook Pros, Chromebooks, headphones, and flip
cameras. The students in 5
th
grade each have Chromebooks that they keep in their
classrooms, and the 6
th
grade students have one-to-one Chromebooks that they take home
every day. In addition, all the software that is used is web-based, so teachers are given
the freedom to choose web-based software that best suits their instructional needs.
Teachers choose their web-based software by accessing the District’s website, where
there are links to over one hundred web-based software for presentations, story creation,
Word and Tag Clouds, video making and editing, social media, collaboration, and
vocabulary and spelling, among others.
Based on survey responses, 71% the teachers had been teaching for over ten
years. 56% of the teachers responded “proficient” to the question “what is your current
skill level with technology?” and 35% responded “somewhat proficient” to the same
question. In addition, 52% of the teachers responded “5+ years” to the statement “I have
been integrating technology into my daily lessons for…” and 33% responded “4-5 years”
to the same statement. 58% of teachers responded “Always” to the question “how often
do you incorporate technology into your daily lessons?” 30% of teachers responded
“Most of the time” to the same question. Furthermore, 63% of teachers responded
“Absolutely” to the statement “I feel confident when integrating technology into my
classroom instruction,” and 34% responded “For the most part” to the same statement.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 65

The survey results pertaining to research question one demonstrate that an overwhelming
majority of teachers (90% +) integrate technology into their daily lessons regularly.
Based on the survey results, these teachers feel proficient and confident when integrating
technology into classroom instruction.
The eight interviews gave insight to the types of technology present at PTM and
the ways in which it is used as a tool of instruction in the classroom. The interviews
revealed that all the classrooms on campus have the same hardware and access to the
same software. As previously mentioned, all teachers have teacher laptops, SMART
boards, projectors, ELMO document cameras, iPads, student responders, and
amplification system in their classrooms. A reoccurring theme that emerged from the
interviews was that the use of technology was such a natural part of their classrooms and
their curriculum that it was seamless. When the principal was asked how the students
demonstrate mastery using technology, she stated:
It is such a natural part of their every-day life at school, and it starts from a simple
activity such as taking role, where the students walk into their classes, go straight
to the SMART board and swipe their names or pictures off of the list displayed to
check in. Technology use is so seamless, that they don’t realize what they’re able
to do, it’s just a natural part of their environment.

When the teacher specialist was asked the same question, she stated:

In the computer lab it’s more obvious because there’s an end product. But I see it
in very natural settings, a lot of times I don’t know what to do with the
technology, and the kids come up so naturally and comfortably and troubleshoot,
and the way they manipulate the technology. It’s hard to see where the beginning
skill and the mastery are because it’s just happening so naturally in the classroom.

The classroom observations demonstrated what the principal and teacher
specialist depicted. All technology tools as stated in the surveys and interviews were
being used in the classrooms. The 6
th
grade students used their one-to-one Chromebooks
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 66

to access Google Classroom to complete and upload their classwork. The 1
st
grade
students were using the iPads during small group instruction. The 3
rd
grade students were
observed during their computer lab rotation. They were learning how to make their own
individual paint program using certain coding. The researcher was truly amazed at how
students in the 3
rd
grade were doing actual programming. For someone who has never
been exposed to any kind of coding to design computer programs, it was truly an
astonishing experience to see small children independently navigate their screens so
naturally and with such ease, in creating and designing an actual program, which would
then be used by the kindergarten and first grade students.
Findings for Research Question Number Two
What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning? The
survey results were significant in determining the importance of technology on teaching
and learning. The researcher focused on four of the twenty survey questions and
responses, which related to research question two. Survey question ten stated “I believe
that technology has positively impacted the quality of my instruction.” Twenty out of
thirty four teachers responded “Absolutely,” and eleven teachers responded “For the most
part.” In addition, during one of the interviews, when the researcher asked the teacher
about her thoughts on the affordances of integrating technology into her classroom, she
responded by saying:
I like the fact that they [students] have access to the information everywhere, and
it allows me to give them different means to access a lesson. So within a lesson if
something didn’t make sense to them, I can quickly show them a video, and it
helps in my instruction.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 67

Survey Question 10: I believe that technology has positively impacted the quality of
my instruction.

Survey question fifteen stated “I believe that technology positively impacts
student creativity.” Thirteen out of thirty four teachers responded “Always,” and twelve
out of thirty four teachers responded “Most of the time.” During the interview with the
principal when asked about the outcomes associated with technology use, she stated:
Remember how we learned how to create PowerPoints in college? Well these
students are learning and making PowerPoints in second grade, they are also
learning how to make Prezis, and video integration within their presentations.

When the teacher specialist was asked the same question, she explained that
second through sixth grade students at PTM all have Google accounts, and they do all of
their work and complete assignments on Google Docs, and Google spreadsheet. They
upload their PowerPoints, word documents, and Prezis to Google Docs where the teacher
can access and give feedback on each assignment. When the computer lab teacher was
interviewed and asked the same question, she explained that the third grade students,
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 68

instead of using paper or cardboard to create a presentation on electricity, they were
working on making their own individual podcasts and made a radio show on electricity.
“Instead of writing about it, they recorded their voices.” She explained that the students
still had to do their research and apply their prior knowledge about electricity in the same
traditional way, using their science books, classroom notes, and handouts, however, the
presentation of the assignment was different, more creative, and more “out of the box.”
Survey Question 15: I believe that technology positively impacts student creativity.

Survey question seventeen stated “I believe that technology is relevant for both
student engagement and student achievement.” Fourteen out of thirty four teachers
responded “Absolutely,” and twelve out of thirty four teachers responded “For the most
part.” The interviews had similar results. One of the teachers expressed that she uses the
technology as a tool to instruct and engage the students. She expressed that by the end of
their first grade year, her first grade students create PowerPoints, and photo stories with
pictures they have taken using the flip cameras on a given topic. She explained that by
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 69

the end of the current academic year, her first grade students will be using the MacBooks
to use the iMovie app to create slide shows of the academic content they have learned in
class. She added that the integration of technology into her classroom and curriculum
increases her students’ curiosity and interest, and persuades and motivates them to be
more engaged.
Survey Question 17: I believe that technology is relevant for both student
engagement and student achievement.

Survey question nineteen asked about the way in which technology has impacted
teaching. See the following graph with the answer results.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 70

Survey Question 19: Technology has impacted teaching in what way?

Thirty-three out of thirty four respondents felt that technology has improved their
teaching, or at the least, it has had some positive effect on their ability to instruct
students. During one of the interviews, when asked about her general feelings about the
role of technology on teaching and learning, the teacher being interviewed explained that
technology had significantly improved her teaching practice because of the ease of
access. She went on explaining that all her lessons were in the SMART Lesson app, in
addition videos and PowerPoint presentations, and pictures, are all at her fingertips when
teaching a lesson. There is no need to interrupt a lesson to obtain a certain document or
look for a video or picture, these things are accessed very quickly within a few seconds.
To answer research question two, in addition to the survey and interview results
discussed above, the researcher also conducted document reviews and observations in
order to help in the triangulation process. Two main documents were reviewed to answer
research question two. These documents were: the National Educational Technology
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 71

Standards (NETS), published by the International Society for Technology in Education
(ISTE), and the Technology Scope and Sequence-Grades K-8, both of which PTM has
adopted as a part of their technology integration. Both of these documents are blueprints
to enable students to learn effectively and be productive in a digital society. In order to
have a better understanding on the impact of technology at PTM on teaching and
learning, the researcher was curious to examine what exactly the students at PTM were
expected to learn. These two documents were crucial in outlining what the students
should be able to achieve within technological literacy in a given school year. Within
NETS there are six Performance Indicators, which are guidelines that explain the
program goals students are expected to achieve to meet NETS standards. The
performance indicators are: Creativity and Innovation; Communication and
Collaboration; Research and Information Fluency; Critical Thinking, Problem Solving,
and Decision Making; Digital Citizenship; and Technology Operations and Concepts
(ISTE, 2015). The Technology Scope and Sequence-Grades K-8 is a part of the Common
Core State Standards (CCSS) adopted and implemented by PlanetBravo at PTM. The
skills identified for each grade level align to the CCSS, and identifies which grade levels
the skills need to be Introduced (I), Reinforced (R), and Mastered (M), (Technology
Scope and Sequence, 2014). Based on the interviews, the following quotes were
obtained from the principal and assistant principal when asked the question “How do
students demonstrate mastery using technology?”
Everything the kids are taught in the computer lab are based on the National
Technology Standards. There’s also an assessment that’s done where data is
collected to see where all the kids are and in what areas they still need help with
or need reinforcement, in the following school year, and by grade.

Not every student is at the same level with the use of technology, especially if
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 72

they came to our school mid-year, or during second or third grade. These students
need time to catch up, and that’s a challenge, but based on the technology
standards we use, we have assessments by grade, to show us what needs to be
reinforced. Based on the data from the assessments, teachers will know which
specific technology skills students in their classrooms have not yet mastered.

The observations conducted by the researcher supported the evidence collected
from surveys, interviews, and document reviews, in answering research question two.
Through the observations, the researcher was able to see first hand the impact of
technology on teaching and learning. During one of the observations, the teacher was
giving a science lesson on invertebrates. Within a split of a second, the teacher was able
to access the lesson to be taught through the SMART notebook, and display it for
students to see on the SMART board. The lesson was laid out beautifully with kid-
friendly language, lots of color, pictures, and video links to show the different types of
invertebrates all at the click of the teacher’s fingertips. Whereas in a traditional
classroom with only a white board, information would have to be written on the board,
printed out, copied, and distributed in a handout format, which would most likely be in
black and white. The teacher was able to deliver her lesson smoothly, all the information
she needed to differentiate for her students was at the tip of her fingertips, it was quick
more efficient, and accessible in a split of a second. Students seemed physically and
emotionally engaged as the information given was so smoothly, quickly and easily
differentiated for better understanding. In some cases, student and teacher interactions
transferred outside of the classroom and into the virtual world for the purpose of further
discussion and reinforcement of lessons and ideas taught in class. In addition to using
Google Docs to upload their work for teacher and/or peer review and feedback, one of the
things that some teachers use is EdMoto. One of the teachers described EdMoto and its
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 73

purpose in the following way:
It’s like Facebook, but it’s educational. I have to create a page for my class, and
invite my students. One of the great things is that they have to use academic
language. So I get in there and I pose a question and ask them for example what
they thought of the story we read in class. They are required to respond to it. It’s
like a classroom chat system where they can reflect on their learning, and share
ideas, depending on what I gear it towards.

Shapley (2011) notes that students learn more when they are engaged in
meaningful, relevant, and intellectually stimulating work. Based on the data collection a
reoccurring theme that emerged in support of research question two was student
connectedness. Technology use and integration at PTM created curiosity amongst
students, which motivated the students to be engaged in their lessons, their classroom,
and their educational environment as a whole. The technology rich environment at PTM
persuaded these students to become and stay connected to active learning because it is
driven by their interests. Employing technology daily in every classroom, as a natural
part of their learning environment, not only helps students become more engaged and
connected, but it helps them to take more control over their own learning as demonstrated
by what the students at PTM are able to produce, whether that may be PowerPoints, or
more advanced products such as video games, applications and other programs.
Findings for Research Question Number Three
In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology?
Where does the leadership come from? The physical environment at PTM embraces
the integration of technology. The state-of-the-art campus was built in 2003. The
beautiful architecture of the buildings allows the outdoors to come inside. The campus
features a city library, a full-sized gymnasium, a computer lab, and a cafeteria. The
school provides wireless Internet access throughout. The school is also wired for
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 74

wireless amplification system in every classroom. As previously described, every
classroom is equipped with a SMART Board and projector, an ELMO document camera,
amplification system, student responders, teacher laptops (MacBook Pro), and a teacher
iPad. The school also has a number of carts for Netbooks, Chromebooks, MacBook Pros,
and iPads. These are available for each “wing” at the school. For example, the third
grade wing has its own Chromebook cart. The third grade teachers collaborate and check
out these carts for student use in their classrooms two or three times per week. In
addition, each fifth grade classroom has its own set of Chromebooks given to each
student to use and keep in their classrooms. Sixth grade students have the one-to-one
Chromebooks, which they use daily in their classrooms, and take them home to use for
homework.
As previously stated, technology integration and use is very much a natural part of
the every day life at PTM, however, it has changed school and classroom dynamics.
Computer skills are being taught to PTM students beginning in kindergarten. By the time
these students are in the second and third grade, they have mastered the basic skills of
saving a file, naming and finding files, logging in and out of accounts, using word
software and creating presentations. Examining the culture of PTM through
observations, it is evident that students are using technology to learn content and
demonstrate their understanding of the content. Observing a third grade classroom in the
computer lab creating programs was one evidence that students had moved beyond
familiarity with tools and were now creating quality projects that showed deep
understanding of content. This also proved to be true, based on an observation conducted
in one of the sixth grade classrooms. Students were working on their English Language
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 75

Arts assignment on their individual Chromebooks. As the researcher walked around the
classroom to see what exactly the students were doing on their Chromebooks, she saw
students working on typing up an essay on Word. Some students were still in the writing
process, and some had completed their drafts and were uploading it to Google Classroom
so the teacher can access it and give feedback. These students were able to employ
technology eloquently, using a variety of tools to complete their assignments.
This high level of integration would not have been possible without the support of
leadership at the district and at the school level. In 2010, with the efforts of district
personnel, the district won a government grant through the Magnet School Assistance
Program of the U.S. Department of Education worth more than $7.4 million, which
helped transform three schools in the district to magnet schools, each specializing in a
different magnet program. $3 million was allocated for PTM to use over the course of
three years for their technology program.
The PTM Tech Needs document was used to examine how some of the funds
were used. Based on this document, the administration of the school, with the district’s
guidance, began purchasing the hardware immediately after the first distribution of the
grant funds. The information on the types of hardware was previously described in this
chapter. Based on the interviews with the administrators, the school administration had
realized that the presence of hardware alone would not be sufficient to fully integrate
technology. They realized that technology integration should incorporate the teachers’
technological skills necessary as a foundation for integrating technology into teaching
and learning. As the principal described “these teachers are not using the SMART Board
as a chalkboard or a whiteboard, which most teachers out there do. They are using it to
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 76

its fullest capacity, and that was our goal.” In addition to purchasing the hardware, the
school administration hired PlanetBravo, to basically get the technology program into
full swing at PTM. The administration was looking for the best possible professional
development its teachers could receive, and PlanetBravo offered it. Thus, a partnership
was established with PlanetBravo, and it not only created a technology plan for the
school and implemented the plan, but it also provided the manpower as a part of the
implementation process. A technology teacher and a technology integration specialist
became full time staff members at PTM. They were an integral part of the school on its
quest to becoming a tech magnet. The Technology integration specialist was there for
two consecutive years, and the technology teacher continues to teach and run the
computer lab.
Based on the survey results, 30 out of 34 teachers (88%) responded “Absolutely”
to the statement “My professional development prepared me to incorporate 21
st
century
learning skills on a daily basis in my classroom.” 12% responded “For the most part” to
the same statement. In addition, 27 out of 34 teachers (79%) responded “Absolutely” to
the statement “My professional development prepared me for the use of technology in my
classroom.” 21% responded “For the most part” to the same statement. The teacher
interviews conducted supported these survey results. The following are three quotes
from the teacher interviews when asked about the kinds of professional developments
that have influenced their integration of technology:
The one-to-one professional development given to us by the technology
integration specialist on a weekly basis made it easy for me to integrate it into my
teaching, and seeing it as a natural part of my teaching, rather than as another
thing I have to add to my lessons. I see it as a part of everything I teach. So
showing us on a one-to-one basis how things work, how apps work, was a huge
help.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 77

The one-to-one was great and helped a lot. The tech specialist would come in and
ask what I wanted to learn that day, and if I told him I wasn’t sure, then he came
up with something applicable to the grade and subject I taught and trained me.
We also had grade-level tech specific collaboration days, facilitated by the
integration specialist, where we talked about technology and share what we had
learned and discovered.

The one-to-one trainings were extremely helpful, because every teacher is at such
different levels with technology, it would be very different had we done mass
trainings for the whole staff. I believe that teachers need to feel comfortable with
technology, otherwise they will not use it, and the one-to-one trainings were very
effective in that.

Clearly, having the technology integration specialist on campus on a daily basis,
and meeting with teachers on a one-to-one basis to train them was a huge factor at PTM
which made the integration of technology a natural part of the school culture. Based on
the information provided in the interviews, these teachers became proficient with all the
technology tools available, as the trainings inculcated an understanding level for each
piece of hardware, software, and Internet tools. Teachers were given plenty of guidance
by the integration specialist for implementing technology-enhanced lessons in their own
classrooms, and had plenty of time and opportunity to ask specific questions to extend
their learning opportunities as well as their students’. The principal during her interview
added:
These trainings were catered to you, and how to use technology and then it
involved how to use these resources to bring into your lessons, so the products are
great, they are sexy, but you need the professional development to make it work,
and the PD is what set us apart, that they were able to get the one-to-one training.

Furthermore, the data collection to answer research question three revealed yet
another important factor. Survey question fourteen stated “The administrative team
actively supports the integration of technology into the school’s classrooms. 71% of
teachers responded “Always,” and 29% responded “Most of the time.”
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 78

Survey Question 14: The administrative team actively supports the integration of
technology into the school’s classrooms.

The data collected from the interviews reinforced the survey outcomes. When
asked about the impact school leadership had on their use of technology, the teachers
expressed that the administration not only makes certain that the hardware, software, and
networking needs of the school have been met, but they place an utmost importance on
teacher training, by providing time for planning and experimentation with technology,
collaboration, and providing multiple opportunities for staff development in promoting
technology integration among their staff. The teachers unanimously explained that when
the technology integration specialist was working with them for two consecutive years,
the administration changed the master schedule of the school to incorporate art and music
classes, so that the teachers each have one hour per week during the instructional day to
meet with the integration specialist and receive one-to-one training while their students
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 79

attended the art and music classes. “They covered our classes, our kids went to music
and art, and we met with the specialist,” said one of the teachers. She further explained
that the professional development release time for technology training and integration
worked very well, because if teachers had to meet with the specialist before or after
school, most teachers would most likely be apposed to it, since this would be considered
before or after their contractual hours. But because it was during the instructional day,
the expectation was that they had to obtain this training. Another teacher added that
when she wishes to observe a colleague teach a lesson using technologies, one of the
administrators will cover her class while she observes her colleague. “The culture is very
open in supporting its teachers to what they want to try with technology,” she added.
During another interview, the teacher shared that in addition to all the professional
development they were receiving on-site, on a regular basis, the administration always
invests into sending many of its teachers to technology conferences every year. The
technology conference the teachers were talking about was the “CUE” conference. CUE
is a professional development conference for educators on the latest technologies to
advance student learning through technology (CUE, 2015). One of the teachers shared
that one of the many things she had taken away from the CUE conference she recently
attended was that instead of assigning ten math problems for homework, students can be
asked to video record themselves explaining how to solve one math problem step-by-
step, and submit the video as the homework assignment.
Based on the data collection a reoccurring theme that emerged in support of
research question three was the importance of integrated and ongoing teacher training for
successful technology integration. The strong focus on the teacher training at PTM was
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 80

the most common theme obtained through all of the eight interviews. The teachers who
were interviewed acknowledged a minimal starting level with their knowledge and use of
technology. In addition, they explained that prior to PTM becoming a tech magnet, and
in the initial stages of technology adoption, they felt intimidated and did not welcome the
idea of having to incorporate technology into their lessons. One teacher said “I was so
apposed to it, I felt like there was no way I was going to use all this technology, I just felt
I didn’t have the time for it.” These participants indicated that the on-going trainings
they received dramatically raised their technology skill levels, where they no longer
concentrated on the use of the hardware and software, but on how to integrate technology
into the content and to use it as a tool to deliver the content to their students. In addition,
being given the time to collaborate with other teachers was also perceived as an effective
way to reinforce their learning. One of the teachers expressed:
It was great coming together on our grade-level tech specific collaboration days,
where we talked specifically about tech, and it helped because teachers were
exploring on their own too, so we would all share what we’ve learned or
discovered.

These teachers unanimously expressed that as a result of the one-to-one trainings which
were catered to each one of them based on their specific needs, they now feel much more
confident toward technology use and integration into the classroom. One teacher added:
There was so much I did not know how to do with all the technology, and the
thought of it scared me. But now I feel so comfortable with it that I can train
anyone who comes on board who has not had the trainings we’ve had.

It was clear that due to the trainings, the fear of technology had diminished
amongst PTM teachers. Their attitudes were very positive toward technology integration
where they felt that the use of technology was just a natural part and a standard
component of their lesson planning and delivery.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 81

Theoretical Framework and Discussion of Themes
In the current study, the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) model was adopted as a framework for understanding teacher knowledge
required for technology integration. The TPACK model was created by Koehler and
Mishra (2009), which explains that content, pedagogy, technology, and the relationship
between these components play a major role in good teaching practices with technology.
As discussed in Chapter 3, two important factors found to have a significant effect on
teacher technology integration and effective use in the classroom are the constructs of
self-efficacy (Lin & Lu, 2010), and TPACK (Niess, 2011).
Koehler and Mishra (2009) argue that in order to be considered a good teacher,
one must be able to show content knowledge paired with pedagogical knowledge. In
other words, in order to increase meaningful learning experiences amongst students,
teaches must have a deep knowledge base of content as well as of learning strategies
(Demir & Bozkurt, 2011). During the interviews with the teachers, when asked the
question “Are there times when you choose not to use technology for instruction? When?
Why?” The teachers unanimously gave similar answers. They explained that as a part of
their teaching practices, they continue to require students to work on assignments without
the use of technology. These teachers talked about the importance of students being able
to search for words using an actual dictionary; use their textbooks to find information on
a given topic; using books checked out from the library to use as reference for research
projects; and going through magazines and newspapers to find articles instead of
searching the web. The following quotes were obtained from the teacher interviews in
response to the question above:
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 82

I still want my students to do things without technology such as using the
dictionary. I know you can Google the word or use an online dictionary, and I
know in reality people usually do not spend the time going through a dictionary,
but I want them to have that skill.

I still want them to handwrite things, when they’re going to write a research
paper, I require them to use at least one book and one newspaper or magazine
article from the library, and cite them in their papers.

When the principal was asked the question “Where (in what learning activities) is
technology integrated into daily classroom practice?” In addition to sharing information
about the types of activities technology is integrated in, she added the following:
….. At the same time, we don’t want our kids not to know how to spell, or how to
handwrite, so they do a lot of writing using pencil and paper, where they don’t
have auto-correct.

Based on the evidence above, the teachers at PTM understand that teaching is a
complicated practice, which requires that they constantly change to adapt their teachings
to newer and better ways of delivering their lessons. However, at the same time, these
teachers continue to be very much in touch with best teaching practices, which are deeply
rooted in strong pedagogical knowledge and beliefs. Based on this, it can be perceived
that these teachers believe that computer-based tasks are not always equivalent to the
traditional paper and pencil-based tasks mainly in activities where reading and writing are
the required tasks. It is evident that teachers are cautious about creating dependency on
technology use amongst students when it comes to mastering specific skills such as being
able to handwrite, spell, and produce written work through traditional ways of conducting
research, because these are the basic elements of teaching important content for
successful student learning and knowledge base.
In inquiring about the lesson design that the teachers use, the researcher
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 83

discovered that the teachers at PTM, as part of their professional development, are
provided with an instructional coach who comes in once or twice a year to provide
trainings which focus on effective lesson design and instruction. Hence, the teachers at
PTM design their lessons using the Focused Adaptable Structure Teaching (FAST)
Framework (TESS, 2015). The FAST Framework for lesson design is grounded on
brain-based research and high quality lesson design, which focuses on the optimal
window of learning (OWL), and quality lesson design. FAST is created by Total
Educational Systems Support (TESS), an educational consulting group that works with
many schools and school districts nationwide. FAST is a structured lesson plan, which
includes steps or “components” that ensure success for all learners. The lesson
components include, preview, also known as the hook, the learning objective, review,
explaining the big idea, explain expert thinking, guided practice/gradual release, closure
and independent practice (TESS, 2015). Teachers pre-teach, re-teach, and extend
concepts based on the needs of the students. This lesson design gives the teachers the
flexibility to incorporate technology as they see fit. The FAST Framework training is
provided through the District in order to yield high quality teaching and learning. The
researcher felt that the FAST Framework, which, according to the principal and teachers,
is used by all teachers for their lesson planning, complements the TPACK framework. In
examining the components of the FAST Framework, the researcher was able to determine
that this Framework for lesson design and delivery required teachers to have a firm grasp
of content knowledge as well as pedagogical knowledge in order to be able to deliver
instruction. Thus, based on the evidence obtained through this study and using the FAST
Framework as a measure in TPACK domains, it can be perceived that teachers at PTM
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 84

possess solid knowledge of technology use and integration into their classrooms, as well
as content and pedagogical knowledge.
Themes
This study utilized data from surveys, interviews, observations and document
analysis to answer the three research questions, following Merriam’s (2009) suggestions
for data analysis to find themes. Three major themes emerged from this case study:
§ Seamlessness of the integrated technology: Upon triangulation of data, it was
evident that technology integration at PTM was such a natural part of the
curriculum that it was seamless. It had been integrated so effectively and
smoothly that it did not stand out as a separate entity. Teachers used it as a tool
and as an ingredient of the content they delivered every day, in every lesson, in
every classroom.
§ Student connectedness: Technology use and integration at PTM created curiosity
and motivated students to become more engaged in their educational
environment. It fostered an environment where students were connected to active
learning demonstrated by the student-generated products.
§ Integrated and on-going teacher training: The on-going one-to-one teacher
trainings were a vital component for the overall success of PTM’s technology
integration. The continuing, consistent, and organized approach to professional
development offered a systematic way of integrating learning into practice.
These three themes were very much parallel to each other. These themes are
centered around the student component, the teacher component, and the systems
component. These three components or entities are linked coherently and are the integral
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 85

and inseparable attributes of any school system. With regards to technology integration,
when interviews, surveys, observations, and document analysis were conducted, each of
these components or entities were in harmony with one another and complemented one
another. For example, the on-going teacher training program was adopted as a part of the
school system, which benefitted the teachers, which in turn created an active learning
environment for students, where the students were engaged and motivated in their own
learning.
Self-Efficacy
In addition to the construct of TPACK, it is important to examine the construct of
self-efficacy. As previously mentioned in this chapter, and discussed in more detail in
the Literature Review, and later in the Methodology chapters, the construct of self-
efficacy is another major factor that has an effect on teachers’ integration of technology
in the classroom (Lin & Lu, 2010). According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is one’s
confidence in his or her ability to organize and execute a given course of action to solve a
problem or accomplish a task. Lin and Lu (2010) explained that when self-efficacy was
coupled with perceived value for technology integration, teachers became more
committed to integrating technology into their instruction. Ertmer and Ottenbreit-
Leftwich (2010) described the influence of self-efficacy beliefs on technology integration
and explained that knowledge of technology alone is not enough if teachers lack the
confidence in using that technology in their instructional practices. In addition, Bandura
(1997) explained that mastery experiences, or experiencing success, as having the
strongest effect on self-efficacy beliefs. Bandura (1997) further suggests that self-
efficacy beliefs have direct impact on teachers’ pedagogical decisions. Based on the data
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 86

collection for this study, it was evident that prior to fully adopting technology at PTM
and in its initial stages of adoption, teachers were afraid of using technology. Their sense
of self-efficacy with its use was fairly weak. The following are quotes gathered from the
interviews when asked the question “what advice would you give to teachers as they
begin to integrate technology into their classrooms?” In addition to their advice, two of
the teachers added the following, based on their initial experiences with technology:
Seek trainings, because it’s not easy to integrate it if you don’t know much about
the tools that are available to you, I was initially very scared, but as I became
more and more familiar with it, I felt like, hey I can do this!

….A lot of us were very reluctant because we did not feel comfortable with the
hardware and software. We didn’t know how to use them to their full capacity,
which was something that was being asked of us, but now I feel that we are in a
position where we can train others. I feel good about it. It’s exciting.

Based on the evidence above, self-efficacy beliefs about the use and integration of
technology amongst the teachers at PTM, is directly related to the knowledge
components of TPACK, specifically to the technology component. Thus, the more input
teachers received in the technology domain, the better they felt about its use and
integration into their lessons. Consequently, the on-going trainings teachers at PTM
received increased their knowledge of technology, which then increased their self-
efficacy with its use and integration into their classroom and their lessons.
The Four Frames of Leadership
Bolman and Deal (2003) explain that organizations are complex and difficult to
understand. Thus, in order to gain clarity, they recommend using the Four Frames to
have a better understanding of the processes in place in any given organization. Bolman
and Deal (2003) suggest that organizations function through a combination of the
political, symbolic, structural, and human resources frames. The current study used these
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 87

frames as lenses to look at the different aspects of PTM in its quest to integrating
technology in the curriculum. The Four Frames were discussed in more detail in the
Methodology chapter of this study.
The success in technology integration at PTM is reflective of the leadership
present at every level, including leadership at the District level and at the school level.
The examiner gathered data on the Four Frames through observations and supported the
observations with information gathered from interviews. Thus, looking at PTM as an
organization through the structural frame, the leadership at the district and school levels
has developed a clear structure for integrating technology into the curriculum. This is
seen through the technology that is put in place at the school site which includes the
hardware, software, as well as the clear expectations for their use as demonstrated by the
school’s technology vision and mission, its adoption of technology standards and the
supports in place for training all teachers. In addition, structure is also put in place by the
district office with its expectations of technology use, as outlined in the District’s 90-page
technology use plan, and all of the supports put in place at the district level for
technology use and integration, including the support provided to all schools and their
personnel by the district’s technology and information services department. In addition,
the district as a governing body, also has its rules and policies that guide, direct and
enhance technology use and integration at all levels.
Looking at PTM as an organization through Bolman and Deal’s (2003) human
resources lens, the leadership at PTM not only meets the needs of the organization but
also of its people, in this case their teachers. Again, with its emphasis on continually
providing the supports needed, the leadership at PTM has placed a strong focus on
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 88

employee morale by being responsive to their needs. In addition, the administrators have
an open door policy for their staff, to address any questions or concerns they may have at
any time. As one of the teachers expressed, “it’s been very encouraging for us to have
supportive leadership.”
In the current study, the researcher used the political frame as a lens to look at the
roles of all stakeholders at PTM and the ways in which they support the integration of
technology. The stakeholders here are the administrators both at the district and school
level, teachers, teacher specialist, and the technology clerk. All these stakeholders had
similar interests and goals, which enabled them to work together to accomplish
successful integration of technology. It is important to add here that the political
approach is also appropriate when resources are scarce or diminishing. For the past three
years, due to the funding available from the federal grant, resources at PTM were far
from being scarce. However, as the principal explained during the interview, now that
the funding has ended, the administration at PTM is in a position that requires them to
really use the political approach to its fullest extent, to build power bases, coalitions, and
create partnerships to maintain the technology program at PTM. She added, “….that’s
when your resource skills come in. You have to be out there and find somebody who is
going to invest in it. Figuring out how to fundraise to keep this up, and how to be
resourceful with what we have is a challenge we will be facing.”
Lastly, the symbolic frame was used to look at the beliefs, values, and vision
embedded in PTM’s culture. According to Bolman and Deal’s (2003) work, symbolic
leaders understand that people need to have the belief that their work is important and
meaningful. During the interview with the principal, she expressed the following: “If a
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 89

teacher was absent for PD, and there was another one coming up, I always gave up my
spot, because I think the teachers are the most important people, because they are the
ones who are going to work with the kids and they need it the most.” In addition to being
supportive, this act also symbolizes the administrator’s belief of the importance of the
teacher’s role and work.
Summary
This chapter deciphered the findings for this qualitative case study from the four
data collection instruments: interviews, surveys, observations, and document review and
analysis. The interpreted data was used to employ triangulation using the multiple
sources of data to validate the results of this study, and discover three main themes which
are: seamlessness of the integrated technology, student connectedness, and integrated and
ongoing teacher trainings. In this chapter the relationship between the theoretical
framework (TPACK) and the construct of self-efficacy was also analyzed. Finally, the
Four Frames of Leadership were used to shed light on the processes in place at PTM for
its notable use and integration of technology into teaching and learning practices.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 90

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the impact of technology on
teaching and learning practices in a high-technology use K-12 school. This study was
one of eleven dissertations developed in a thematic dissertation group. Chapter one
presented an overview of the study by providing a general outline, including the
statement of the problem, purpose and significance of the study, the assumptions,
limitations and delimitations of the study, and definitions. Chapter two provided a
review of relevant literature about the history and background of technology in K-12
schools, 21
st
Century skills, and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The
Literature review also addressed the impact of technology on education including the
positive and negative aspects, and the types of barriers educators face in adopting and
implementing new technologies. In addition, the literature review also addressed teacher
ideology, attitudes and beliefs toward technology integration as well as school climate
and the role of leadership in creating a supportive environment for technology use.
Chapter three described the methodology of the case study, which includes the theoretical
framework, research questions and design, population and sample, instrumentation, data
collection, validity and reliability, and the process of data analysis. Chapter four
presented the data on the findings of the study obtained from the four data collection
instruments: surveys, interviews, observations and document review. These sources of
data were used to triangulate the results of the study. Chapter five will provide a
summary and analysis of the case study findings, and present implications and
recommendations for future research.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 91

Findings
Three main themes emerged from this qualitative case study. The three themes
were: Seamlessness of the integrated technology, student connectedness, and integrated
and on-going teacher training. Seamlessness of technology in teaching and learning
practices suggests that the use of technology is second nature. This implies that instead
of focusing on the technology they are using, teachers are applying the use of technology
to facilitate active learning and enhance learning activities and objectives in meaningful
ways. In addition, seamlessness of integrated technology allows students to build a
deeper understanding of the subject matter. Integrating technology into teaching and
learning practices also creates curiosity amongst students, which motivates them to
become more engaged in their own learning. Ultimately, it fosters connectedness to
active learning, where students are able to use a variety of technological tools to complete
assignments, and create projects that evolve from their deep understanding of content.
Making technology a natural and seamless part of a school system, which fosters
curiosity and engagement amongst students, would not be possible without on-going
training and support for teachers. Equipping classrooms with technologies and offering
occasional staff development or training on their use is not sufficient for integration of
technology into teaching and learning practices. Trainings must be structured, on-going,
and integrated into the school system to empower teachers to use these technologies
daily. There is vast evidence in research that suggests that long-term and situated support
for teachers can lead to increased confidence for technology integration. Teachers’
confidence in their own capabilities with technology use leads to increased levels of self-
efficacy. Teachers are more committed to incorporate technology into their classrooms
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 92

when their self-efficacy beliefs are strong. Therefore, in order to increase teacher self-
efficacy for the integration of technology, organized and on-going trainings must be
integrated in the school system.
This case study identified the ways in which an elementary technology magnet
school located in Los Angeles County has integrated technology into its curriculum.
Pacific Tech Magnet (PTM) is a Title I school, which implies that a high percentage of
the student population comes from low-income families and qualifies for the free and
reduced lunch program. With the supports of leadership at the district level, PTM had
received $3 million in government grant money to use over the course of three years for
their technology plan. These funds were used to purchase much of the technology
equipment as well as for hiring a privately owned company to create and implement a
technology plan, as well as provide the manpower to assist with the implementation
process. The technology teacher and the technology integration specialist were an
integral part of the adoption and implementation of technology at PTM. Teachers were
able to obtain weekly one-to-one trainings, as well as bi-weekly group trainings and
collaboration with a focus on technology use. In addition, students received advanced
technology instruction in the school’s computer lab where they learned everything from
basic computer skills to the more advanced skills such as coding, programming, and
creating apps and video games. Also, in addition to having access to iPads, Netbooks,
Chromebooks, and MacBooks on multiple carts available for regular classroom use, fifth
and sixth grade students had their one-to-one Chromebooks that they used every day for
classroom assignments, with the sixth grade students having the advantage of taking their
Chromebooks home to complete their homework.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 93

Findings of this study as they relate to the themes were centered around the main
components, or entities, that make up a school system: the student, the teacher, and the
systems that are in place. Technology use at PTM was integrated into teaching and
learning practices in such a way that it had become a natural and seamless part of the
system. Through its use, students had become curious and engaged learners. What they
were able to do and produce through the use of technology was a testament to their
learning. However, none of this would be possible without the organized and on-going
supports, which were put into place at PTM, with its supportive leadership in the
forefront.
Implications For Practice
Over the years new and rapidly improving technologies have created possibilities,
opportunities, and resources that have revolutionized education as a whole. Presence of
equipment alone however, is not sufficient for successful integration of technology in
teaching and learning practices. Research has shown that professional development
(Johnson, Adams, Becker, Cummins Estrada, Freeman & Ludgate, 2013), and on-going
support (Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010) are some of the major
barriers that impact technology integration into the curriculum. Thus, continued support
and on-going trainings for teachers is a key factor for meaningful technology integration
in the classroom.
Technology integration can be costly. PTM was fortunate to have government
grant funds for the creation and maintenance of their technology program. The grant
made the purchasing of all the hardware possible. A walk through the state-of-the-art
campus and through its hallways, one will get a good glimpse of the many forms of
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 94

technology available for student and staff use. In addition to purchasing the equipment,
the grant funds were also used for the on-going trainings for teachers through the hiring
of the technology integration specialist, and technology teacher. Although this study
found three main themes, if the researcher was given the option to choose only one of the
three themes to discuss in this dissertation, it would most definitely be the integrated and
on-going teacher training. Data gathered through the interviews, surveys and
observations had overwhelming evidence that the on-going trainings provided to teachers
in the form of weekly one-to-one interactions with the integration specialist was the most
crucial piece of the puzzle that made technology integration possible. The implication
presented here yields to the necessity of structured technology implementation plans that
are designed to fit the individual needs of the teachers.
Future Research
Equipping classrooms with the latest and most advanced technology tools is only
one single factor for technology integration. Based on a body of literature, there are
many issues and barriers for adopting and implementing technology into the curriculum.
The effective integration of technology is dependent on the teacher’s knowledge of the
technology. Research suggests that when teacher training for technology integration
involves on-going and hands-on practice, teacher confidence as well as the probability of
use and integration into the curriculum increase significantly. The purpose of this study
was to examine the impact of technology on teaching and learning practices. The
following are recommendations for future research:
1. The driving force for the successful integration of technology into the
curriculum at PTM was the funding from the government grant. It would be
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 95

interesting to find a similar school that has also integrated technology into the
curriculum, without a similar funding. More specifically, research needs to
examine the various ways schools can adopt, implement, and maintain the
integration of technology, especially when funds are scarce for such programs.
2. Further analysis is needed on how to effectively integrate technology into
teaching and learning practices as it relates to student achievement in core
subject areas. More in-depth research is needed to examine the link between
computer-inspired engagement and learning of content for higher academic
achievement.
Full integration of technology into teaching and learning practices is dependent
upon the classroom teacher’s knowledge, skills, and confidence to integrate it into daily
lesson planning and delivery. Knowing how to use a computer for example, is not
enough. Teachers must be well-rounded in technology use to be able to integrate it into
the curriculum in effective ways, where the technology is a natural element of teaching
and learning, a part of the journey rather than the destination. Proper supports must be
put into place to pave the way to its successful integration.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 96

References
Aldunate, R., Nussbaum, M. (2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in
Human Behavior 29, 519-524.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Beach, R., Baker, F.W. (2011). Why core standards must embrace media literacy.
Education Week, 36(30).
Bingimals, K.A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and
learning environments. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245.
Bogdan, R.C., Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: an introduction
to theory and methods. Boston: Pearson.
Bolman, L., Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(4
th
ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brikerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on
technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and
practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(1), 22-43.
Buckenmeyer, J. A. (2010). Beyond computers in the classroom: factors related to
technology adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemporary issues in
education research 3(4), 27-35.
California Department of Education [CDE] 2013. Executive summary explaining the
academic performance index (API). Retrieved from
www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/aplexecsummary.pdf
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 97

Campbell, C., Martin, D. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and the first year experience:
Integrating IWBs into preservice teacher education. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 35, 68.
Cantrell, P., Liu, L., Leverington, M., Taylor, J. (2007). The effects of differentiated
technology integration on student achievement in middle school science
classrooms. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 3(2),
36-54.
Chandra, V., Lloyd, M. (2008). The methodological nettle: ICT and student
achievement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1087-1098.
Clark, R.E., Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, N.C: Information Age Publishing.
Collins, A., Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The
digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.
CUE (2015). CUE powerful learning, www.cue.org
Davies, R. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating
educational technology integration. Tech Trends 55(5), 45-52.
Dettelis, P. (2010). New York State technology education: History, the current state of
affairs, and the future. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(4), 34-38.
Duncan, A. (2009). Statement from U.S. Secretary of education Arne Duncan on results
of NAEP Arts 2008 assessment. Washington DC: US Department of Education.
Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/06/06152009.html
Dunleavy, M., Dexter, S. Heinecke, W.F. (2007). What added value does a 1:1 student
laptop ratio bring to technology supported teaching and learning? Journal of
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 98

Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 440-452.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 2001. Title II, Part D-Enhancing
Education Through Technology. Retrieved from
www.2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html
Ely, D. (2008). Frameworks of educational technology. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(2), 244-250.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, belief and culture intersect. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 4(3), 255-284.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computer & Education 59, 423-435.
Fingal, D. (2009). Ahead of his time. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(5), 26-
29.
Flanagin, A.J., Metzger, M.J. (2010). Kids and credibility: An empirical examination of
youth, digital media use, and information credibility. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Foote, C. (2012). Learning together: the evolution of a 1:1 iPad program. Internet @
Schools, 19(1), 14-18.
Geer, R. Sweeney, T. (2012). Students’ voices about learning with technology. Journal
of Social Sciences, 8(2), 294-303.
Gorder, L. M. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology
integration in the classroom. The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, L(2), 63-76.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 99

Hall, T. (2012). Digital renaissance: The creative potential of narrative technology in
education. Creative Education, 3(1), 96-100.
Ham, V. (2010). Participant-directed evaluation: using teachers’ own inquiries to
evaluate professional development in technology integration. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 22-29.
Hancock, R., Knezek, G., Christensen, R. (2007). Cross-validation measures of
technology integration: A first step towards examining potential relationships
between technology integration and student achievement. Journal of Computing
in Education, 24(1), 15-21.
Hartsell, T., Harron, S., Houbin, F., Rathod, A. (2010). Improving teachers’ self-
confidence in learning technology skills and math education through professional
development. International Journal of Information and Communication
Technology Education, 6(2), 47-61.
Hernandez-Ramos, P. (2005). If not here, where? Understanding teachers’ use of
technology in Silicon Valley schools. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education. 38(1), 39-64.
Hew, K., 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), 223-251.
Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J. (2009). Revisiting technology integration in schools:
implications for professional development. Computers in Schools, 26(2), 130-
146.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 100

Holden, H., Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and
technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research
on Technology in Education 43(4), 343-367.
Hooper, R. (2008). Educational technology: A long look back. British Journal of
Educational Technology. 39(2), 234-236.
Inan, F., Lowther, D. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12
classrooms: a path model. Educational Technologies Research Development, 58,
137-154.
International Society of Technology in Education [ISTE] (2015). National education
technology standards (NETS). Retrieved from www.iste.org
Izbal, Z., Mahmood, N. (2010). Unraveling the changing pattern of prospective teachers’
self-confidence: Transition from theory of teaching to practice, Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 20(2), 15-35.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., Ludgate, H.
(2013). NMC horizon report, K-12 edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium. Retrieved from www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-k12.pdf
Johnson, T.W., Reed, R.F. (2008). Philosophical documents in education, 3
rd
Ed.
Boston: Pearson.
Jonson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., Smythe, T. (2009). The 2009 horizon report: K-12
edition. Retrieved from www.nmc.org/pdf/2009-horizon-report-k12.pdf.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 91-101.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 101

Johnson, L., Willis, H., Levine, A., Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon report.
Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from
www.nmc.org/pdf/2011-Horizon-Report.pdf
Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is
there a connection? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 14(3), 581-
593.
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. Springer.
Koehler, M.J. & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1),
60-70.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teacher’s perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education 59, 1109-1121.
Labbo, L. D., Place, K. (2010). Fresh perspectives on new literacies and technology
integration. Voices from the Middle 17(3), 9-18.
Larson, L.C., Miller, T.N. (2011). 21
st
Century skills: Prepare students for the future.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121-123.
Leer, R., Ivanov, S. (2013). Rethinking the future of learning: the possibilities and
limitations of technology in education in the 21
st
century. International Journal
of Organizational Innovation 5(4), 14-20.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 102

Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship
between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(3), 455-472.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Smith, A., Macgrill, A. (2007). Teens and social media.
Retrieved from
www.pewInternet.org/~/media//files/Reports/2007/PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf
Lin, CM., Lu, M. (2010). The study of teachers’ task values and self-efficacy on their
commitment and effectiveness for technology-instruction integration. US-China
Education Review, 7(5), 1-11.
Marzano, R. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Educational Leadership,
67(3), 80-82.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.)
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Mayer, R.E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2
nd
ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 285-307.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Migliorino, P. (2011). Digital technologies can unite but also divide: CACD
Communities in the digital age. Australian Public Libraries and Information
Services, 24(3), 107-110.
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 103

Mishra, P., Koehler, M., Kerelwik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking
back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53.
Mitchell, B., Bailey, J.L., Monroe, E. (2007). Integrating technology and standards-
based pedagogy in a geometry classroom: A mature teacher deals with the reality
of multiple demands and paradigm shifts. Computers in the Schools 24(1-2),
75-91.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for
measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with Technology
Nov 1995.
Molenda, M. (2008). The programmed instruction era: When effectiveness mattered.
TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 52(2), 52-58.
Mueller, J., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Ross, C., Specht, J. (2008). Identifying
discriminating variables between teachers who fully integrate computers and
teachers with limited integration. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1523-1537.
Murray, O.T., & Olcese, N.R. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or not?
Tech Trends 55(6), 42-48.
National Governors Association (2010). Common core standard. Retrieved from
www.nga.org
Nevin, R. (2009). Supporting 21
st
century learning through Google Apps. Teacher
Librarian, 37(2), 35-38.
Niess, M.L. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge growth in teaching with
technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317.
Overbaugh, R., Lu, R. (2008). The impact of a federally funded grant on a professional
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 104

development program: teacher stages of concern toward technology integration.
Journal of Computing, 25(2), 45-55.
Park, S. H., Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’
beliefs regarding technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 40(2), 247-267.
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (2011) (a). Framework for 21
st
century learning.
Retrieved from www.p21.org.
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (2011)(b). P21 common core toolkit: A guide to
aligning the common core state standards with the framework for 21
st
century
skills. Retrieved from
www.p21.org/storage/documents/p21commoncoretoolkit.pdf.
Petriashvili, I. (2012). Integrating electronic instructional and assessment tools into
teacher education programs. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 5(5), 323-
330.
Phillips, V., Wong, C. (2010). Tying together the common core of standards, instruction,
and assessments. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 37-42.
Plair, S. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and
fluency. Heldref: East Lansing, MI.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new
U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
Prensky, M. (2013). Our brains extended. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 22-27.
Ramirez Jr., A. (2011). Technology planning, purchasing and training: How school
leaders can help support the successful implementation and integration of
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 105

technology in the learning environment. Journal of Technology Integration In the
Classroom, 3(1), 67-73.
Reich, J. (2013). The iPad as a tool for creation to strengthen learning. Mindshift.
Retrieved from http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/07/potential-and.reality-the-
ipad-as-a-tool-for-creation/
Resnick, L.B. (2010). Nested learning systems for the thinking curriculum. Educational
Researcher, 39(3), 183-197.
Saine, P. (2012). iPods, iPads, and the SMARTBoard: Transforming literacy instruction
and student learning. New England Reading Association Journal, 47(2), 74-81.
Schrum, L., Levin, B.B. (2013). Teachers’ technology professional development:
Lessons learned from exemplary school. TechTrends, 57(1), 38-42.
Shapley, K. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students’
learning opportunities and achievement. Journal of Educational Research,
104(5), 299-315.
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Effects of
technology immersion on teachers’ growth in technology competency, ideology,
and practices. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 1-33.
Siegle, D. (2013). iPads, intuitive technology for 21
st
century students. Gifted Child
Today, 36(2), 146-150.
Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21
st
century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9),
630-634.
Smith, H., Higgins, S., Wall, K., Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards, boon or bust?
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 106

Somekh, B. (2008). Factors affecting teachers’ pedagogical adoption of ICT. In J. Voogt
& G. Knezek (Eds). International handbook of information technology in
primary and secondary education, 449-460. New York: Springer.
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions
for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625-649.
Sugar, W., Brown, A. (2008). Antecedents of computer-based instruction and its current
relationship to our discipline. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to
Improve Learning, 52(2), 59-69.
Technology Scope and Sequence (2014). Retrieved from
www.lbschools.net/main_offices/curriculum/Areas/Technology/docs/Common_C
ore/CCSSK-12TechnologyScope and Sequence.pdf
Wang, C.H. (2010). Technology leadership among school principals: A technology-
coordinator’s perspective. Asian Social Science, 6(1), 51-54.
Waters, J.K. (2010). Enter the iPad (or not?). THE Journal, 37(6), 38-45.
Wells, J. (2007). Key design factors in durable instructional technology professional
development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 101-122.
Wetzel, K., Foulger, T., Williams, M. (2008). The evolution of the required educational
technology course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 67-71.

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 107

Appendix A

Instruments of the Study

Document Review Template
Teacher Interview Protocol
Administrator Interview Protocol
Teacher Survey
Classroom Observation Protocol

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 108

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, Smart
Board, 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

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 109

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
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 110

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

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 111

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 there 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 your integration of
technology?

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 112

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 your integration of
technology?

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 113

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
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 114

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
Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 115

17. I believe that technology is relevant for both student engagement and student
achievement.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
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

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 116

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

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 117

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?

Running Head: INTEGRATION OF TECHNOLOGY 118

Observation Notes

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study examined the ways in which technology has been integrated into teaching and learning practices at an academically high-performing technology magnet school. Although access to technology has significantly increased in K-12 schools in the last decade and a half, most research indicates the actual usage in most classrooms to be of a low-level (i.e. administrative, skill-drill, etc.) variety. This study seeks to explore how an urban elementary school identified for its high student performance as well as for its high use of technology has integrated technology into their teaching and learning practices. A survey of school staff, interviews with administrators and teachers, document analysis, and classroom and campus observations were used to triangulate the data, to determine the perceived impact of technology on student learning and the overall school climate. Three themes emerged from the study in response to the research questions: Seamlessness of the integrated technology, student connectedness, and integrated and on-going teacher training. Implications for educators include the necessity of structured technology implementation plans that are designed to meet the individual needs of the teachers.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

PDF

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

PDF

Learning and teaching with technology

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

A case study: technology, teaching and student learning

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Keuroghlian, Houri Arslanian (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/23/2015

Defense Date 03/02/2015

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,teaching and learning with technology,technology integration in K-12 schools

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart E. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Kassabian, Narek (committee member)

Creator Email hakeurog@usc.edu,HouriA317@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-557435

Unique identifier UC11300475

Identifier etd-Keuroghlia-3377.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-557435 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Keuroghlia-3377.pdf

Dmrecord 557435

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Keuroghlian, Houri Arslanian

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