University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: GROWING THE “T” IN STEM EMBRACING THE CHALLENGE OF GROWING THE “T” IN STEM AND ITS ROLE IN TEACHING AND LEARNING: A CASE STUDY by Anabel Luna 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 Anabel Luna GROWING THE “T” IN STEM ii Dedication I dedicate my work, dissertation, and continuous desire to grow to my husband and three beautiful children. To my husband, Ismael Luna, I would not be able to accomplish all that I have in these last three years if it wasn’t for your unconditional support and love. To Graciela, Ismael Jr., and Joaquin, for being children who try to understand our family sacrifices and not driving your dad crazy when I am not home. I also dedicate this dissertation to my loving parents, Martha and Jesus Nunez, for your unconditional belief in me and continuous words of encouragement that are always in my mind and heart. I only hope to continue making you proud with every choice I make in life. También dedico esta tesis a mis amorosos padres, Marta y Jesús Núñez, por su creencia incondicional en mí y continuas palabras de aliento que siempre están en mi mente y corazón. Sólo espero seguir de hacerlos orgullosos con cada elección que hago en mi vida. I dedicate this work to my sisters, nieces, and nephews for being my cheerleaders. I only hope that you will continue to work on accomplishing your own life goals. In the end, seek to be happy, enjoy every day. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM iii Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest appreciation and thanks to my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Stuart Gothold, for your guidance, support, countless hours of reading and editing my work, and patience throughout the entire process. It was a privilege being part of your thematic dissertation group. I wish to give a special thank you to Dr. Dennis Hocevar and Dr. Frederick W. Freking for agreeing to serve on my committee. Your contributions, expertise, and generosity with your time are greatly appreciated. Dr. Freking, thank you once again for the opportunity in being a guest teacher in your MAT course. The guidance, support, and advice you provided then and afterward are always appreciated. I would like to also thank Dr. Linda Fischer and John Beltramo, future doctor of philosophy, for their assistance and time reviewing my work. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Marleen C. Pugach and Dr. Jamy Stillman. Each of you has pushed me to think beyond what I was capable and provided encouragement throughout my progress as a student in the Teacher Education in Multicultural Societies track. Dr. Pugach, I cannot express how thankful I am for taking your diversity course during my first year as an EdD student. You have been instrumental in my progress through this program, and thank you for your continuous encouragement and support. I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to know you beyond the classroom and see you as more than a mentor. You are an amazing person, and I hope that you continue being part of my life. Dr. Stillman, it has been an honor and privilege to be part of your circle. I appreciate your knowledge, support, and desire to push us as learners and teacher educators. I am inspired by your commitment to your craft and pushing teacher education issues to the forefront. Each GROWING THE “T” IN STEM iv monthly circle meeting inspires me to continue as an educator and do what is best for my students. Thank you for the opportunity to take part in this learning experience. My deepest gratitude goes to the administrators and teachers who agreed to participate in my dissertation study. Each of you was generous with taking time out of your busy schedules to share your stories. Your experiences were inspiring, and I am honored to share them with others. I only hope that my narrative expresses the passion and dedication you all have for your students and the school’s continued growth. Chris Corpus and Sinar Lomeli, I cannot express how grateful I am to have met you in this journey. Your generosity, compassion, encouragement, honesty, and friendship have been the greatest blessing I have received, next to my family. I am glad to call you my greatest and dearest friends, for you have pushed me to believe in myself even when I had doubts. You are intelligent, talented, and amazing women of color. Thank you for the continuous support. Lastly, I want to acknowledge the sacrifices that my husband and three beautiful children have endured these last three years. Ismael, I want to thank you for supporting me as I took on multiple leadership roles as a teacher and taking on this EdD program. You have taken on the role of mother and father during the week so that I could keep my professional life organized during the week. I am finally done! To my parents and sisters, thank you for being my greatest supporters from the first day. I am fortunate to have such a strong foundation through your love, support, and encouragement. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM v Table of Contents List of Tables viii List of Figures ix Abstract x Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1 Introduction 1 Background of the Problem 2 Statement of the Problem 5 Purpose of the Study 6 Significance of the Study 7 Limitations of the Study 8 Delimitations of the Study 9 Assumptions 9 Definitions of Terms 10 Organization of the Study 13 Chapter Two: Literature Review 14 Historical Overview of Technology in Education 14 Technology in K–12 Schools 15 21st-Century Skills 16 Common Core State Standards 17 Impact of Technology 18 Positive Aspects 18 Student Engagement and Motivation 19 Instructional Strategies and Differentiation 19 Negative Aspects 20 Limited Access to Model Teachers 20 Classroom Management 21 Technology Used as a Replacement Strategy 21 Inconsistent Implementation 22 Teacher Ideology 22 Teacher Efficacy and Level of Integration 22 Perceptions of Technology Integration 23 Alignment of Beliefs to Practice 23 Self-Regulating Behavior 24 School Culture and Leadership 24 Developing a Shared Vision and Role of Administrator 25 Developing Teacher Leadership 27 Professional Development (PD) and Technology Supports 28 Barriers and Issues 29 First-Order Barriers to Technology Integration 29 Limited Access to Resources 29 Lack of Support for Technology Maintenance 30 Inadequate Professional Development and Time 30 Second Order Barriers to Technology Integration 31 Beliefs and Perceptions of Technology Impact 31 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM vi Established Classroom Practices 31 Issues with Technology Integration 32 Digital Divide 32 Evolving technology 32 Teacher Education Programs 33 Promising Practices/Models of Technology Use 33 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 34 Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) 35 Project-Based Learning (PBL) 35 Blended Learning 35 Flipped Model 36 Distance Learning 36 Critique – Overall Assessment of What Has Been Learned 37 Chapter Three: Methodology 40 Conceptual Model 42 Research Questions 43 Research Design 43 Population and Sample 44 Instrumentation 47 Interview and Survey Instruments 47 Document and Observation Instruments 47 Data Collection 49 Validity and Reliability 50 Data Analysis 51 Summary 51 Chapter Four: Results 53 Research Questions 54 School Site 54 Initial Visit to Endeavor MS 55 All Day Observation of School and Staff 58 Research Participants 59 Teachers and Support Staff from Endeavor MS 60 School Administrators 63 District Administrators 64 Research Question One Findings 66 Discussion for Research Question One 76 Research Question Two Findings 76 Discussion for Research Question Two 84 Research Question Three Findings 85 District Role in Endeavor MS and Technology Integration 91 Challenges Integrating Technology 92 Discussion for Research Question Three 92 Emerging Themes and Discussion 93 “Getting the right people in the right positions” 93 Building a Supportive and Collaborative Culture 94 Human resource frame 94 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM vii Structural frame 94 Political frame 94 Symbolic frame 95 Strategic Role of the School District 95 “It all boils down to training teachers on technology” 97 Building Teacher Capacity 98 Teacher Efficacy 99 Summary 100 Chapter Five: Overview 104 Purpose of the Study 104 Significance of Study 105 Research Methodology 105 Conclusion 106 Implications 112 Teacher Education Programs and Technology 113 Recommendations for Endeavor MS 114 Recommendations for Further Study 115 References 119 Appendix A: Interview Protocol 133 Appendix B: Survey Protocol 135 Appendix C: Observation Protocol 138 Appendix D: Document Review Protocol 141 Appendix E: Survey Data 144 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM viii List of Tables Table 1: School API Scores from 2010–2013 46 Table 2: School Demographics 56 Table 3: Survey Question 5 and 6 Results Addressing Research Question One 67 Table 4: Survey Question 10 and 14 Results Addressing Research Question One 70 Table 5: Survey Results from Relevant Questions Addressing Research Question Two 77 Table 6: Survey Results for Questions Addressing Research Question Three 86 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM ix List of Figures Figure 1: TPACK Framework Conceptual Model 42 Figure 2: TPACK Framework – Research Conceptual Model 101 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM x Abstract Education is constantly evolving, facing new demands from changing standards in a competitive global society. California K–12 schools are now navigating greater demands for technology integration from the Common Core State Standards and NGSS to develop students’ 21st-century skills and improve learning outcomes. The focus of this case study was to identify the decisions, actions, and leadership taken by one school to embrace technology as a tool for instruction. Multiple data collection methods were implemented, including a staff survey, participant interviews, observations, and review of documents for triangulation. The study used the TPACK framework as a conceptual model to guide the investigation. The results from this qualitative case study indicated that key factors to creating a school that embraces technology include: collaboration among teachers, administration, and the district; a shared vision; having the right people on board; continuous and effective technology professional development; building teacher capacity; and having a strong collaborative leadership team. In addition, the findings suggested that technology implementation can be led by the school district when all stakeholders are taken into consideration with each decision and action for dissemination of resources and professional development (PD). This case study seeks to further practitioners’ and policymakers’ understanding of what the technology implementation process looks like in transforming teacher instruction and student learning. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 1 CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Introduction “In our society, dependent as it now is on technology, teachers [and citizens] who are incompetent with technology are jeopardizing their students’ success.” (Huff, 2007, para. 2) Technology is a resource readily available to people—but not always to effective ends. Our nation is in need of students who graduate with the 21st-century skills that will allow them to compete nationally and globally (Bell, 2010). Use of technology in the classroom is still a new venture in education; the goal is to provide the supports for students to construct knowledge through a structured learning environment (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Johnson, 2013). Yet, limited access to effective technology-based models for teachers and schools to consult seems to be impacting the possibility of transforming instruction from the traditional curriculum to one that embeds technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Putnam & Borko, 2000). Teachers need to acquire the technology skills and technology pedagogy to “support active student learning” (p. 2), changing the teacher’s role from a transmitter of knowledge to a facilitator for student knowledge and skill acquisition (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011). According to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), some of the technological skills all students need for success include researching online sources to support learning, installing software, creating a product that can be published, creating data tables, and producing a multimedia presentation (CCCS, 2015). With the shift to the Common Core State Standards and its requirement to assess students electronically, teachers need to introduce these essential technological skills in their classroom and instruction (Johnson, 2013). Ertmer and Ottenbreit- Leftwich (2010) argued that teachers are not using technology effectively to facilitate and GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 2 empower students’ learning experiences. Observations of a large number of classrooms in the United States have shown technology being used as a tool for direct instruction or procedural processes, which raises a question: what is happening with teacher preparation and development in terms of technology integration? The goal of this study is to identify K–12 schools that infuse technology seamlessly, thus to determine a potential model for schools looking to further develop teacher pedagogy and technological skills to adequately prepare students for the 21st century. Background of the Problem An increased demand for educators to receive effective professional development came about with the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002; but the lack of investment and specificity hindered that effort. According to Adams (2010), problems with follow-through were a result of financial systems not working well with education policy demands, leading to lack of funding for both the improvement of pre-service teacher education programs and professional development for in-service teachers. This problem is visible in traditional teacher preparation programs, as they demonstrate inconsistencies in the quality of technology training provided for pre-service teachers. At the same time, alternative route participants experience more difficulties at the beginning of their teaching assignment because they are granted less time to practice their craft or receive no instruction focused on technology related to their content (Allen, 2003). This shortcoming only adds to the number of teachers not fully prepared to teach students with the required skills and knowledge to compete in the 21st-century workforce and meet societal needs. Therefore, researchers have argued that teachers do not know how to integrate technology for content accessibility and are ignoring student competencies that have the potential to support meaningful student-centered instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Mouza, 2011). GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 3 The inadequate focus on technology instruction in teacher education—though research has shown how necessary it is—means that teachers are not being provided the resources or supports that would aid with implementation of in-depth technologically infused instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Johnson, 2013; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Mouza, 2011). The school district– and site-based professional development is thus left to manage the knowledge gap. But these sources only provide surface instruction, offering a glimpse of technology possibilities but not developing the practice. Professional development should be designed to develop the capacity of teachers to work collectively on problems of practice within their own schools and with practitioners in other settings (Elmore, 2002). Indeed, it would provide the opportunity to observe and learn from other educators who feel confident using technology beyond its procedural tasks. Mouza (2011) found that teachers struggle with applying acquired technological knowledge into their lessons, supporting what other researchers have identified as one of various factors that inhibit progress. Teachers need the systematic supports and resources that will guide them toward bridging this new instructional tool between academics and student cognitive engagement. Due to the lack of effective professional development and collaboration, there is a sporadic use of technology in the classroom, and, if any, it is used as a replacement of traditional instruction, not for knowledge exploration (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Mouza, 2011). Based on qualitative data collected by researchers, instruction and professional development are not placing emphasis on technology in the content and pedagogy or offering the opportunity for practice inquiry (Mouza, 2011). By constructing knowledge through inquiry and using technology to facilitate the learning and/or research process, teachers’ instructional pedagogy and student learning outcomes can be improved. Therefore, school districts and administrators GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 4 should take the information into consideration as they work on developing the yearly strategic plans to better serve the needs of teachers and students. By referencing Shulman’s (1987) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and Koehler and Mirshra’s (2006) technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) frameworks, district and school administrators can better inform their planning and approach to technology integration. Finally, though technology integration provides teachers an increased instructional repertoire, the research is limited on assessing student learning outcomes. Research has not dug deeply enough to understand the relationship between teacher pedagogical knowledge, technology knowledge, and its impact on student learning (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). The research does not provide supporting data regarding the impact on learning; often research fails to consider the influence of technology professional development from the student level. Surveys appear to be the common tool in the research literature reviewed, assessing the following: teachers’ attendance to professional development, the use of technology based on confidence level, or “SMILE” questions. These methods do not assess actual effects on instructional approach, teacher beliefs, or student learning outcomes. According to Lawless and Pellegrino (2007), future studies on technology that focuses on professional development need to design assessments from the student level to better inform teachers and their practice. Only then can districts and school administrators identify the aspects of instruction that will promote constructivist thinking among teachers and students. Through a process of reforming professional development, increasing teacher involvement and its approach to embedding technology in lessons will allow for exploration of the methods of assessing student learning. Learning how to embed this tool through involvement GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 5 in the change process would transform teacher beliefs and practices (Caperton, Bushaw, & Washington, 2010; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; McGrail, 2006). For example, student accountability as learners, contributing citizens, and competitors in the global market would be increased as class becomes more learner-centered (Milanowski, Kimball, & Odden, 2005). We have to search for effective technology implementation models that can be referenced by other urban schools to create authentic learning environments. By analyzing these models, we can show the possible adaptations to teaching, instruction, learning, and long-term change based on sustainable investment (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). If school districts and education leaders choose not to research the question, then we will continue with the same ineffective traditional school model—one no longer compatible with the needs of the 21st-century student. Reliance on a “one-size fits all" model within an urban and/or rural community only perpetuates the failure of meeting the needs of students from mid- to low socioeconomic status (SES). Generalizability does not fit this set of thinking as each school and district varies in culture and character. Differentiating the learning experiences and environments can be achieved by studying the factors that have led a K–12 school to implement a technology-infused program that is identifying changes in teachers, students, and the school culture. Studying such a school allows us to delve into technology-infused classroom lessons and to collect data on what has taken place from teacher and student perspectives by observing teacher-student interactions. Statement of the Problem Research on technology in the K–12 classroom is weak and limited because researchers have not collected data concerning the impact that technology-embedded instruction has on student learning and teaching. The literature and policy argue for more technology preparation and influence on teacher pedagogy, yet, the “how” piece for attaining this goal is not fully GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 6 known. Currently, we know of technology being used as a tool for instruction in the following formats: blended learning, flipped classroom, voice threads, online learning communities, and web activities (Caperton et al., 2010). But what is not known is the process that schools, districts, and teachers take in developing these environments, the impact on their instructional pedagogy, and how these increase student achievement. The purpose of this study is to explore these factors through identification of a school model to develop a case study that will inform us of the following: what makes technology work or not work; impact on student learning; what school culture is necessary; and what type of coaching or supports need to be in place to enhance teacher instruction. Students need skills and knowledge to succeed in an ever-changing technological world. Many K–12 schools are embracing technology. More needs to be learned about how this technology use affects teaching and learning. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to understand how technology is transforming teaching and learning practices at high-technology use K-12 schools. This dissertation analyzed the phenomenon of technology integration and use at an urban middle school in Los Angeles County, specifically considering its mission and vision as a STEM school whose dedication to technology had changed the level of instruction and student learning. To this end, the study aimed to distinguish specific factors that had led to creating a technology-supportive school culture. The study followed a qualitative case study format that collected multiple data sources through interviews from various stakeholders; surveys, classroom teaching observations, and lesson plan samples. The researcher appraised the data with respect to the following themes: technology resource allocation, forms of integration within classroom, perceptions of the impact of technology on teaching and learning, factors that contribute to creating a supportive school GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 7 culture, and the source of leadership around this school movement. The following research questions guided the study: 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 There is great urgency for K–12 schools to increase the level of technology integration and literacy so their students can develop the 21st-century skills to compete in college and today’s workforce. Yet, the research literature yields limited findings on teaching and learning that is impacted by technology and lacks a full understanding of all factors playing out in a school. This study seeks to provide educators, school leadership, and districts a better understanding of what is working well and/or how schools have been able to collaborate in creating a technology environment that transforms teachers and students. Overall, the aim is to impart to schools an idea of how other high technology schools have overcome challenges and barriers to create an environment that promotes student learning, teacher leadership, and growth as a community of learners. Practitioners and school administrators will find this study useful to aid with their evaluation of current technology structure and its impact on their student academic growth. The opportunity to see the decisions and changes that a high technology school took to support school community technology integration can guide other schools looking for a sustainable model. With the CCSS and 21st-century skills initiatives strongly recommending more GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 8 technology for students, this research will add to how a high technology school is working to meet teacher and student needs. Though this is one case study of 11 focusing on K–12 schools, the identification of how one school is effectively evolving teacher instruction and student learning may provide benefits to school districts. Policymakers, teacher educators, and educational leaders can use some guidance from this case study to inform their decisions on funding, teacher education, and school accountability measures. By further examining the findings from this study and the 10 other studies, the results can add to the understanding of what a school does to elevate the teaching and learning with technology as a tool. Limitations of the Study Though the desire to find effective teaching models that integrate technology into instruction and student learning is exigent, the case study model has limitations in providing but a snapshot of the phenomenon. The following were limitations to the study:  The study was focused on one middle school that embraced technology.  Study participation was voluntary.  The study took place over a brief period of time, therefore limiting what the researcher saw and collected as data. Technology use might not be visible during observations.  Transferability of findings is limited to other schools because the study focused on one school.  Researcher as observer and main research instrument limits the study due to single person perspective and level of expertise. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 9 Delimitations of the Study I chose to limit my scope of school selection based on the grade level and SES that is relevant to my interest: middle school and middle-to-low SES. The selection criteria also focused on characteristics that provide history to reference for comparison: open for three or more years, technology part of the school mission, technology plan present and academic achievement based on Academic Performance Index (API). I remained aware that these characteristics may limit potential findings, and note that this study only provides a glimpse of what is occurring within the studied phenomenon. Because the study is focused on using the TPACK framework, technology will be a delimitation because It only looked at certain aspects of teaching and learning within the K–12 setting. Therefore, how I spent my time observing and interviewing participants had to provide the opportunity to collect rich data from the studied phenomenon. Assumptions The following assumptions were made based on the understanding that this study was a snapshot of the phenomenon occurring in a K–12 school during the fall semester:  Schools had funding for technology.  Professional development was occurring continuously.  Teachers and students were in the beginning stages of the school and may have varied in attitude as the semester continues.  The principal and technology specialist were approached to provide the best times to conduct class observations.  School schedules and classroom events were reviewed to plan visits. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 10 Definition of Terms Below is an extensive list of terms that are discussed or used throughout the dissertation. Definitions have been provided to enhance the reader’s understanding. Academic Performance Index (API): Academic performance measure that ranges from a scale of 200 to 1,000 used by California’s Public Schools since the passage of the Accountability Act of 1999 (CDE website, 2013). Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Federal performance evaluation mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act for all public schools. Schools are required to meet specific growth targets in the following: reading/language arts, mathematics, and graduation rates (for high schools). California Standards Test (CST): California standards assessments that test students in second-12th grade in a variety of academic areas (CDE website, 2014). California Department of Education (CDE): The governing body for public education in the State of California. Common Core State Standards (CCSS). State standards newly adopted by 45 states that were developed by a consortium of national representatives requiring a set of high-quality academic standards in mathematics and English language arts/literacy (www.corestandards.org). Critical Thinking, Communication, Collaboration, Creativity (4Cs). Partnership for 21st Century Skills identified four critical skills 21st-century students need to be competitive and active participants (www.p21.org). GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 11 Digital Native. A digital native is a person who has grown up in an environment infused with technology and who engages with it in his or her daily life (Guo, Dobsin, & Petrina, 2008). Digital Immigrant: Individuals who were born before the explosion of digital technology and who show low engagement or proficiency (Guo et al., 2008). English Language Learners (ELL): Student classification based on English language abilities. They are identified as learning English as a second language or reclassified based on fluency levels: reclassified fluent English proficient (RFEP) and initially fluent English proficiency (IFEP). International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE). The International Society for Technology in Education is a nonprofit organization committed to empowering teachers and learners through a digitally connected world (www.iste.org). Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAP). This is a plan that is drafted by the district that breakdowns needs for basic student services, student achievement goals, and processes of engaging students, parents, and teachers. This plan receives feedback from various stakeholders and describes actions to meet needs. National Educational Technology Standards (NETS): Formerly the technology standards used to evaluate student skills and knowledge through digital media, but replaced by the ISTE standards (ISTE website). No Child Left Behind (NCLB): No Child Left Behind is a United States Act of Congress passed in 2001 that reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which included Title I. Developed to decrease the achievement gap and support GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 12 standards-based education reform (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/ index.html). Professional Development (PD): Training opportunities geared toward developing teacher instructional knowledge and pedagogy, usually site-based. Program Improvement (PI): Title I schools that do not achieve their AYP goals by the end of the year are designated as Program Improvement schools under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Project Lead the Way (PLTW): Project Lead the Way is a K–12 STEM program used nationwide and sponsored by various nonprofit organizations. It is geared toward preparing students to succeed in such fields as science, engineering, and technology, and provides teachers with in-depth training. School Accountability Report Card (SARC): Annual self-reports that California public schools must provide so the public can evaluate and compare schools for student achievement, environment, resources, and demographics (CDE, 2013). Socioeconomic Status (SES): A social and/or economic label designated to an individual or family based on their income, education, and occupation. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM): An educational approach or pedagogy that incorporates science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in a problem-based learning environment, in hopes of increasing student interest in these fields (cslnet.org). Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR): Annual assessments that public schools administer to assess student performance in the following subjects: English language, math, science, and history-social sciences. They were developed based on the GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 13 California state standards but most recently these assessments are being replaced by Common Core State Standards assessment (CDE, 2014). Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21): A coalition of business community, education leaders, and policymakers who collaborated to develop a framework for 21st- century skill readiness at the center of U.S. K–12 education (www.p21.org). Project Based Learning (PBL): A teaching approach that focuses on engaging students through project-based investigations grounded in student interests and reshaping teacher pedagogy. Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK): A framework for technology integration that provides the ideal teaching and learning conditions. Implementation can be successful when teachers possess adequate content knowledge, use research-based pedagogical approaches, and select the appropriate technology to promote student learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Organization of the Study The study begins with an overview in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature that identifies models that embed technology into school and instruction. This chapter then describes the history of technology in education, impact of technology, barriers, and issues, and the promising practices of technology use. Chapter 3 describes the methodology of this qualitative case study and the conceptual model used to develop the research questions, data collection instruments, and determination of validity. Chapter 4 gives a description of the chosen school and the findings in relation to the research questions. Finally, Chapter 5 provides analysis of the collected data and discusses implications and recommendations based on study findings. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 14 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW How is technology being used as a tool of instruction, and what is the perceived impact on teaching and learning? The urgent shift to embed technology into education without sufficient evidence of successful implementation models that support new policy, student learning, and funding decisions has left many skeptical about technology’s potential (Inan & Lowther, 2010). This literature review will examine research on the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning practices in K–12 schools. In addition, it will identify promising practices and critique what has been learned about technology’s influence on teaching and student learning. Historical Overview of Technology in Education The role of technology in education has been evolving along with society’s stress on increasing our competitiveness with foreign countries with rising economies. Early versions of technology were seen in the beginning to mid-20th century but have changed from sporadic use to a wide-ranging movement of audio-visual instruction (Reiser, 2001). This section will discuss how technology has played a role in K–12 schools, 21st-century skills, and the Common Core State Standards. Use of technology in education is not a new concept, but it is a complex endeavor that educators and policymakers have undertaken since the 1970s (Anderson, 1996). First came the introduction of micro-computers, in the 1990s, into the classroom, with guidelines from education policy; but that phase had minimal impact on instruction and student learning (Barron, Kemker, Harmes, & Kalaydjian, 2003; Reiser, 2001). To increase accountability and improve technology in education, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) developed the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for teachers and students in 1998. The purpose behind these standards has been to provide best practices in teaching and GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 15 learning with technology so as to design a learner-centered environment that promotes critical thinking skills and collaboration (ISTE website). These standards have since been updated and referred to as the ISTE-NETS Standards. Though they are available, the technology standards have not been adopted by all the states in the U.S., resulting in small changes in teacher instruction and their method of integrating technology into lessons (ISTE website; Leer & Ivanov, 2013). Therefore, students are being taught by some teachers who may lack the skills or insights to develop lessons that embed technological tools that address students’ learning needs. This issue has become increasingly problematic as the U.S. economy manages low-skilled workers and a growing secondary school population with poor digital literacy skills. Technology in K–12 Schools According to Reiser (2001), early versions of technology in schools were visual instructional media (i.e., film, slides) whose purpose was to supplement the teacher or textbook. Since then, education has been exposed to myriad technological resources that can be infused into a teacher’s instruction. Currently, the integration of technology is inconsistent across school districts but we have seen scattered successes in implementation. The integration of technology into education has been patchy at best. Some school districts experiment with different technologies and have had successes in student outcomes while others still lack the implementation process to improve teacher practice (Leer & Ivanov, 2013). Computers have been used since the 1980s to aid in preparing classroom activities or to complete procedural activities, in which the teacher interacts with the technology—but these efforts have had minimal impact in terms of students using it as a learning tool (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Reiser, 2001). Teachers have integrated technology into their instruction as a format of content delivery or practice through the use of overhead GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 16 projectors, computer programs, document cameras, smart boards, or LCD projectors. Yet, there has been an explosion in the realm of educational policy reform, initiatives, and classroom instruction to move away from traditional computer use of drill and practice toward Web 2.0 applications (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012; Musawi, 2011; Wohlwend, 2010). For example, Apple Computers has been working with schools to create technology-rich environments that foster innovation, higher order thinking skills, and collaborative interactions among students and, at times, with teachers (Barron et al., 2003; Muir- Herzig, 2004; Rowsell, Saudell, Scott, & Bishop, 2013). The influx of iPads, one-to-one computers, laptops, and tablets has changed the classroom environment and device purpose— from creating presentations in a collaborative group or writing a paper for English class, to participating in an online discussion or quiz to track mastery of content (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2012; Rowsell et al., 2013; Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005). Of course, many of these changes have come about from educational policies, reformists, and the urgency to support the teaching necessary to transform student learning to meet 21 st century needs. 21 st Century Skills In order to become competitive in the 21 st century, students are to acquire skills that will provide them access to a rigorous education and life. In 2002, the Partnership for 21 st Century Skills (P21) non-profit coalition was founded to start a national conversation on the importance of preparing all students for the 21 st century (P21website). The coalition is made up of the U.S. Department of Education, business organizations, and educational leaders whose mission is to collaborate with educators in building a framework to be integrated into the classroom curriculum to increase student learning and skills (P21 website). Based on the Partnership for GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 17 21 st century skills framework (2011), technology and media literacy are essential to developing the following skills: critical thinking, creativity for problem solving, communication, and collaboration. We need to anticipate where students are in their technological skills to further their abilities for the 21st century—life, and college. The shift from a teacher-directed to a student-centered instructional approach has increased the level of engagement and sense of empowerment for digital learners (Cavanaugh, Dawson, & Ritzhaupt, 2011; Facer, 2012). Cavanaugh et al. (2011) noted that an increase in student achievement occurred when meaningful technology-embedded lesson activities allowed for the application of 21st-century skills. Digital literacy is becoming an important aspect for students in accessing shared knowledge, driving their learning, and engaging in collaborative problem-solving tasks that reach beyond the classroom walls (also known as project-based learning) (Beers, 2012; Bell, 2010; Facer, 2012). The Partnership for 21 st Century Skills and the ISTE are two frameworks with standards and expectations that should be integrated into a teacher’s curriculum; both recognize the importance of digital literacy in promoting engaging learning experiences, (Beers, 2012; Larson & Miller, 2011). Similar to the recommended 21st- century skills, Common Core State Standards require students to develop technological skills that will support learner-centered environments. Common Core State Standards The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were developed through the collaboration of education researchers, teachers across the U.S., and educational experts to provide an outline of the rigor that students need to achieve at each stage of their educational career (CCSS website). To that end, Common Core argues for the following in terms of college readiness: students are to gain fluency with the technologies that will allow them to conduct research, generate products, or GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 18 develop the ability to integrate technology into their learning to further their understanding (CCSS website). Teachers must also acquire the skills and digital literacy of Web 2.0 necessary to facilitate technology-rich environments with inquiry-based learning opportunities that will further student abilities and content curriculum (Facer, 2012; Hutchison, Beschorner, & Schmidt- Crawford, 2012; Larson & Miller, 2011; Wohlwend, 2010). Though these are recommendations from the developers of Common Core, there are many uncertainties about the right approach to preparing teachers and students for the new shift. The Common Core standards provide new indicators for literacy skills but there is still a need for clarification on digital literacy skills. Students are entering school lacking the skills for identifying reliable online sources to analyze critically and to apply in solving real-life problems both of which relate to 21st-century skills focused on media literacy (Beach & Baker, 2011; Larson & Miller, 2012). Impact of Technology Educators and policymakers have different views of technology and its significance for teaching and learning—ranging from developing college-ready students to training a competitive workforce. The adoption of the myriad technologies in the classroom is not to be thought of as self-sufficient; rather, teachers and students have taken a guided and inquiry approach that has led to mixed results (Davies, 2011; Hall, 2010; Hall, 2012; Hernandez-Ramos, 2005; Lei & Morrow, 2010; Straub, 2009). Positive Aspects Researchers have asserted that certain instructional strategies that integrate forms of technology have resulted in positive learning outcomes for students and teachers (Brady, Seli, & Rosenthal, 2013; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hastie, 2007; Moersch, 1995; Pearson, Ferdig, Blomeyer, & Moran, 2005; Peters & Slotta, 2010). Use of technology as a tool for GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 19 instruction has led to increased student engagement with content and to application outside of the class as teachers collaborate to meet the various needs of their students. Student engagement and motivation. When lesson activities are properly structured, teachers provide an arena for students to explore their interests while guided by the content curriculum. Student engagement and interests have increased with curriculum that integrates technology organization and is not treated as an add-on—for example, the use of “clickers” to poll student opinions has elevated class discussions to higher-level thinking (Brady et al., 2013). This form of engagement and motivation for learning was seen in Peters and Slotta’s (2010) study of biology classrooms that took a constructivist approach to knowledge-building through the collaborative creation of disease cases on a student-created Wiki online platform. Similar forms of student collaboration and consumption of knowledge have been found with the use of iPads and structured online activities designed for inquiry (Hastie, 2007; Moersh, 1995; Murray & Olcese, 2011). Technology-integrated lessons that follow foundational curriculum theorists, such as, Bagley (n.d.) or Tyler (1969), have the potential to promote student engagement through student interest or effort to develop a motivation to learn. Instructional strategies and differentiation. The influx of iPads, one-to-one media devices, and smartphones have generated opportunities for educators to gradually change student achievement, prepare students for the 21st century, and help them in knowledge acquisition (Hutchinson et al., 2012; Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2012; Rowsell et al., 2013; Wohlwend, 2010). Teacher and student interactions with curriculum and instruction have moved from a traditional “banking system,” so labeled by Freire (1993), to a shared and reflective experience. Differentiating for reading intervention and skill acquisition has led to positive impacts on student learning outcomes (Pearson et al., 2005). The classroom environment’s shift from direct GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 20 instruction to learner-centered through a PBL model has improved teacher pedagogy as technology is integrated seamlessly (Keengwe et al., 2012). Researchers have noted that the use of iPads and PBL in the classroom is helping students become the teachers through a shift to a student-centered classroom (Rowsell et al., 2013). Keengwe et al.’s (2012) study supports this outcome, as they note how teachers have seen students accessing more information and increasing their analytical skills through their own research projects. The sudden push for instruction toward constructivist pedagogy is thought to foster a greater level of critical thinking (Keengwe et al., 2012; Pearson et al., 2005). Exposure to realistic problem situations and opportunities for developing solutions are preparing students for today’s college and life needs. Negative Aspects With the urgency to prepare students with 21st-century skills have come negative side effects due to ineffective integration of technology. Researchers have detected gaps in the support and professional development provided to teachers, which have resulted in poor delivery of lessons, inconsistent implementation, or low-level engagement for students. Limited access to model teachers. If leadership has not fully integrated technology into its school culture, then technology expertise remains unknown as teachers are left to work in isolation. The lack of appropriate instructional supports and technology specialists reduces the possibility of technology assimilation (Hew & Brush, 2009). Ertmer (1999) and Staples et al. (2005) stated that excitement for technology wears out when exemplary models of instructional technology are lacking, thus eroding advocacy for the transformation of teaching and learning. Both studies also noted that student engagement would be affected as teachers continue to integrate technology for low cognitive level lessons (Ertmer, 1999; Staples et al., 2005). The GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 21 continued lack of exemplary teacher models to follow has led to low technology implementation, which then hinders students from being the drivers of knowledge acquisition. Classroom management. Student behavior and monitoring strategies need to be taken into consideration when integrating technology into lessons, but this aspect is rarely addressed in teacher professional development plans. Teachers are not changing their class routines to make them compatible with the changing arena of learning with technology. The implementation of technology in K–12 schools has led to limited creations of a constructivist learning environment; some schools are not providing the culture and structure for group interactions with technology (Gülbahar, 2007; Hew & Brush, 2007). Ideal environments involve teachers being facilitators who monitor student learning and infuse forms of accountability into lessons that provide structure, such as centers or group stations (Ertmer, 1999). Researchers have also noted that classroom management remains unexplored in both professional development (PD) for in-service teachers and teacher education programs for pre-service teachers (Gülbahar, 2007; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010). Unfortunately, some teachers lack the behavioral strategies to address the changing classroom, expressing fear about releasing control to the student (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Mueller, Wood, Willoughby, Ross, & Specht, 2008). Technology used as a replacement strategy. Researchers have identified three formats in which technology has been used by teachers and education: replacement of traditional instruction, enhancement or add-on, or transformative method (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Mama & Hennessy, 2013; Prestridge, 2012; Yang & Wu, 2012). The implementation approach varies among schools, and seems, at times, to contradict the expectations set by 21st- century skills and Common Core standards. Mueller et al.’s (2008) study found that classroom teaching did not coincide with survey responses from teachers who claimed to be integrating GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 22 technology into their instruction. Such findings suggest that observed classroom technology interactions tend to lean toward the replacement of traditional teaching and not the implementation of a “cognitive tool” to aid students in acquiring knowledge (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Mueller et al., 2008; Murray & Olcese, 2011). A gap in technology knowledge and skills, therefore, is hindering the desired instructional transformation (Ertmer & Ottenbreit- Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Staples et al., 2005). Inconsistent implementation. We can assume that students differ in their learning experiences in schools and classrooms based on the level of technology literacy on the part of the teacher, administration, and technology specialists. The lack of resources, inadequate PD, an unclear vision of technology integration, and unwillingness to see the value of changing instructional approaches have resulted in inconsistent implementation by teachers and schools (Gülbahar, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010). A hit-or-miss dissemination of technology initiatives decreases teacher motivation. Researchers have also noted that teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of technology impact the level of technology integration (Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010). Teacher Ideology Teachers’ beliefs and efficacy in their ability to integrate technology into their teaching may trump their growth. Most teachers need to understand that the various technologies available to them are just tools that will provide another avenue for students to access content; it will not do the teaching. Teacher efficacy and level of integration. Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief in his or her ability to succeed at a given task. According to Bandura (1997) and Pajares (1996), individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy seem more confident in their ability to succeed, GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 23 persist, and not be discouraged by prior failures—compared to those with low efficacy. Therefore, a teacher’s level of technology efficacy supersedes their technology knowledge; it seems to influence the amount of integration, value as an instructional tool, and constructivist approach (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Tondeur, Hermans, Braak, & Valcke, 2008). Ertmer et al. (2012) have stated that there is potential in changing the efficacy level of teachers, but schools and organizations must improve their methods of increasing knowledge of integrating technology into instruction. Though many teachers demonstrate characteristics of an efficacious teacher in their ability to use technology and integration, their actual implementation varies greatly. Perceptions of technology integration. Straub (2009) has stated that teacher perceptions of technology tend to impact their willingness to use it within the classroom. Teachers have to be aware that they control the internal structure of their classrooms and can develop lesson activities, group arrangements, and assessments that integrate different formats of technology (Prestridge, 2012). Technology is useful for differentiating instruction for various learners in one’s classroom, but time and effort become an issue when teachers do not receive the appropriate supports. Research has indicated that changing teacher perceptions of technology and of their role as change agents can evolve with the appropriate supports so students can begin to use technology in critical thinking activities (Ertmer, 1999; Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Lei & Morrow, 2010; Palak & Walls, 2009). Alignment of beliefs to practice. Researchers have identified comfort with computers, frequent use of technology, and reflective behavior as significant contributors to teachers’ integration of technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Mueller et al., 2008). Tondeur et al. (2008) and Paily (2013) further acknowledged that teachers with a constructivist perspective GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 24 were better able to adopt technology into their pedagogy. Yet, not all teachers believe in the benefits of technology as a tool for instruction. The level of curriculum and technology integration does not resemble that of a full student-centered classroom, perhaps due to gaps in students’ knowledge and skills (Ertmer et al., 2012; Holden & Rada, 2011; Lei & Morrow, 2010; Staples et al., 2000; Straub, 2009). To shift pedagogy, educators must clarify teacher and student roles before implementing a technology-based lesson through incremental adjustments. Self-regulating behavior. According to Denler, Wolters, and Benzon (2010), self- regulating behavior relies on the individual’s ability to set goals, self-monitor his or her progress, and have self-judgment of his or her mastery of a goal. Teachers who perceive technology as a beneficial tool for learning take it upon themselves to seek out professional development and additional sources that will improve their technological skills and ability to integrate them into the classroom (Ertmer, 1999; Tondeur et al., 2008; Wetzel & Marshall, 2011). Therefore, it seems that teachers who display self-regulating attributes are committed to finding ways to meet their students’ needs by leveraging technology. They use available blogs, wikis, or join professional learning communities to gain skills that will aid in introducing new activities into their classroom (Ertmer et al., 2012). Participation in professional learning communities furthers their development and informs their current pedagogy as they dedicate time to assimilating technology. School Culture and Leadership School climate sets the tone for adoption and implementation of initiatives in small and large organizations. Each stakeholder plays a key role in developing a supportive environment that can lead to successfully launching the initiative and supporting its continued evolution for GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 25 effective integration that impacts student learning outcomes. Both school culture and leadership have also influenced the outcome of technology integration in K–12 school systems. Leadership sets the tone for buy-in to new initiative adoption, support, and follow- through. In terms of technology, school administrators have to be knowledgeable of the use and purpose if teachers are expected to approach it without skepticism. When considering acceptance and participation in teaching changes, principals must also carefully reflect upon whom they hire and the level of that candidate’s technology knowledge. Jim Collins (2005) noted this issue by offering that when considering change and the success of an initiative, “Get the right people on the bus” (para. 7). Therefore, this requires that all leaders and/or staff become literate in the various multimedia sources that fall under the umbrella of technology to sustain desired educational change. Developing a shared vision and role of administrator. School leaders need to initiate the conversation with key stakeholders in developing a clear, shared vision and mission of technology integration so as to foster an environment that embraces the desired change (Anderson & Dexter, 2005; Costello, 1997; Hamzah, Nordin, Jusoff, Karim, & Yusof, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Hodas, 1993; Staples et al., 2005). Costello (1997) has argued that creating a mutual vision fosters partnership between all stakeholders, which allows informed decision making when defining technology use, implementation approach, budget expenditures, and revision of short- or long-term goals. Researchers have noted that not all administrators change their technology behaviors at the same rate that their staff desires, and that the level of interaction and value of technology varies among school administrators, affecting the adoption of a shared vision (Anderson & Dexter, 2005; Baylor & Ritchie, 2001; Hamzah et al., 2010; Haughey, 2006). GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 26 Administrators need to consider forming a technology committee to inventory the teacher body for level of expertise, strategically plan how to address the digital technology needs (infrastructure, hardware, and knowledge), and support the shared vision to develop a technology-rich school atmosphere that maximizes teaching and learning (Davies, 2010; Hamzah et al., 2010). Such a committee would be able to deal with technology integration into the school community, consider how public the accomplishments should be, inform stakeholders, and track the affect it has on planning curriculum that fosters meaningful learning (Gülbahar, 2007; Hernandez-Ramos, 2005). High expectations for students and teachers are necessary so achievement and engagement with technology integration occurs; therefore, their voices need to be part of the planning. School structure will also need to transform, and become open to changing the format of the classroom and larger environment; integrating technology as a tool for learning should afford teachers and students a feeling of ownership. Therefore, schools must have an infrastructure that meets the needs of learner-centered, collaborative environments. Ho and Ng (2012) noted that an organization’s culture and structure must present the right leadership conditions for technology integration into the school and its curriculum. Administrators themselves are advised to have some experience and comfort level with the technologies or multimedia that they are asking teachers to implement in their classrooms so as to fulfill a role of facilitator (Anderson & Dexter, 2005; Hamzah et al., 2010). Research has shown that the top-down dissemination of policies has not been effective when the principal does not understand its purpose or potential influence on teaching and learning; shifting to a distributed leadership approach decreases skepticism (Davies, 2010; Hamzah et al., 2010; Haughey, 2006; Hodas, 1993). Fullan (2002) has suggested that leadership should be shared and developed by the principal among those who are viewed as credible and effective teachers. The GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 27 goal is to empower teachers as technology leaders, so they can help with guiding the shift in the school and curriculum. This arrangement is further supported by Staples et al.’s (2005) study of three urban schools, suggesting that alignment of curriculum with technology use, agency for teacher influence in its development, and public/private recognition of teacher and student product lead to advantages for successful implementation. Through the model of distributed technology leadership, administrators empower emerging teacher-leaders to take charge of creating a collaborative school environment in which human capital and supports can be realized (Hamzah et al., 2010; Haughey, 2006; Ho & Ng, 2012; Staples et al., 2005) Developing teacher leadership. Teachers open to change, which have a sense of innovation, influence the motivation of their colleagues for technology use and can support boosting teacher technology efficacy (Baylor & Ritchie, 2001; Davies, 2010). Empowerment of teachers who have taken it upon themselves to develop their technology abilities increases the possibility of change in instructional practice. There is potential in small-scale change and growth of emerging teacher leaders. Promising teacher-leaders have some technical expertise, identify the relevance to their pedagogy, and show signs of being change agents for redefining teaching and learning (Davies, 2010; Ho & Ng, 2012; Hodas, 1993; Staples et al., 2005). Therefore, allowing colleagues opportunities to see and interact with exemplary technology- infused lessons or teacher models to create a community of learners can make the expectations more feasible. Teacher-leaders as change agents can promote the belief that they can re-shape teaching and learning by changing their approach to curriculum and technology integration. The gradual changes they participate in with administration could increase the sustainability of changes in school culture and teacher-student support for technology. Ho and Ng’s (2012) study found that GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 28 level of expertise or its acquisition with practice led to the distribution of instructional leadership, which advanced the implementation of technology and change in school culture. Such an approach can aid in promoting teacher buy-in, providing opportunities for collaboration. Working together to show how technology supports teaching practice re-envisions the purpose of school, changing the culture to one that embraces an innovative tool of instruction (Anderson & Dexter, 2005; Baylor & Ritchie, 2001; Costella, 1997; Hodas, 1993; Hamzah et al., 2010). Professional development (PD) and technology supports. Districts, school administration, and teacher-leaders need to collaborate in developing purposeful and structured PD geared toward adult learners. PD needs to provide scaffolds, opportunities for practice, and observations of peers to develop mastery of technology integration (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer et al., 2012; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Staples et al., 2005). Studies have suggested addressing the following when providing PD and supports: use strong leaders (administration and teachers) that promote technology use; encourage teachers to be open to change and to see greater change; demystify policies and vision so as not to hinder innovation; use a constructivist approach in training; coordinate curriculum and instructional support; and make time for collaboration and practice (Cavanaugh et al., 2011; Costello, 1997; Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Staples et al., 2005). With the appropriate supports built into the school technology model and pedagogy, some teachers have been able to construct structured lessons that give students the opportunity to study their interest while remaining guided by the curriculum (Lei & Morrow, 2010; Moersch, 1995; Staples et al. 2005). Teachers need support in transforming student learning by shifting from teacher-centered classrooms to student-centered ones (Moersch, 1995). Mueller et al. (2008) have posited that identifying more “teachers who are successfully integrating technology GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 29 is one way of developing workshops to expose teachers to successful integration in a practical way” (p. 1534). To make teachers comfortable, PD should provide student products and sample lessons that have been created by those in their own school or others alike. Barriers and Issues Though commercial companies are continuously updating technology and creating new programs for the education setting, many teachers and schools still face barriers to their level of integration into the classroom or curriculum (Ertmer et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2008; Holden & Rada, 2011; Thompson, 2013). Companies and individuals developing programs for the classroom are not providing adequate training or scaffolds to adapt them to the development of student-centered activities (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Staples et al. 2005). Borrowing from Ertmer’s (1999) discussion on barriers faced by teachers and technology integration, this section will address the first- and second-order barriers to changing teaching approach. Then, it will discuss other issues that researchers have identified as challenges for both teachers and students. First-Order Barriers to Technology Integration According to Ertmer (1999) and Ertmer et al. (2012), first order refers to the extrinsic barriers over which teachers do not have control. First-order barriers to technology integration refer to areas that the school and district have not removed and that therefore become gatekeepers to transforming instruction for students. Limited access to resources. Limited technology infrastructures in schools and old hardware pose an external challenge for teachers, and their interest in technology wanes due to poor Internet connectivity or lack of computers (Ertmer, 1999; Hew & Brush, 2000; Staples et al., 2005). Network capabilities hinder the motivation to use technology in the classroom. According to Davies (2011), proper roll-out of technology will not occur if teachers are not given GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 30 the technology first—before using it as a whole class. With the appropriate funding and technology conditions, teacher instruction could evolve to construct meaningful learning experiences for students (Cavanaugh et al., 2011; Reiser, 2001; Staples et al., 2005). Lack of support for technology maintenance and instruction. Limited or lack of technology specialists and knowledgeable administration affect the adoption of technology by instruction and school culture (Cavanaugh et al., 2011; Staples et al., 2005). Administration that is not knowledgeable or supportive of technology hinders the desire for a technology-rich school culture. Incorporating technology resources into lessons does not always occur seamlessly because instructional support does not focus on curriculum and strategies that will support new modes of learning (Summaka, Samancioglub, & Baglibelb, 2010). Though some teachers are “tech savvy,” this does not mean they have the appropriate grasp of curriculum and pedagogy; they acquire skills through trial and error or participation in learning communities. Inadequate professional development and time. Insufficient technology professional development has led to scattered use of technology in the K–12 arena. Cavanaugh et al. (2011) found that PD and structure have not met the needs of adult learners to support their refinement of teaching with technology. Time and adequate PD are necessary to foster a shift in teaching and learning that leads to preparing students for the 21st century. Peters and Slotta (2010) have noted that teachers have not been granted the opportunity to collaborate on, practice, and master integrating technology into their teaching. Though students are constructing their own knowledge through the use of Web 2.0, teachers have not been given the time to formulate authentic interconnections between content and the real world (Davies, 2011; Peters & Slotta, 2010). GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 31 Second Order Barriers to Technology Integration Second-order barriers refer to a teacher’s ability to change his or her pedagogical beliefs and perceptions of technology’s impact on teaching and learning, and to modify established classroom practices (Ertmer, 1999). Second-order barriers are intrinsic and can hinder teachers’ willingness to change even with the elimination of first-order barriers. Beliefs and perceptions of technology impact. Teacher practice has shown misalignment among their beliefs and technology use; some do not see the value and influence it can have on student learning outcomes (Conole, de Laat, Dillon, & Darby, 2008; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Prestridge, 2012). This complication arises when teachers have not been presented viable model teachers who have seen technology’s effects on student learning (Reiser, 2001). Such intrinsic barriers can further hinder a teacher’s ability to see him- or herself as a change agent who can construct learning environments in which students and teachers interact with technology-infused curriculum activities (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer et al., 2012; Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Mama & Hennessy, 2013). Teachers must abandon the belief that technology is a toy, and that it will not help students develop the appropriate skills to compete in society. Ertmer et al. (2012) noted that this intrinsic belief makes teachers gatekeepers who need to transform into facilitators and provide students the tools to take charge of their learning to become the “new 21 st century student” (p. 431). Established classroom practices. Teachers have the ability to control group structures and technology integration to increase learning opportunities, but studies have shown that they are not provided sufficient instructional supports to redefine their practice (Ertmer et al., 2012; Staples et al., 2005). According to Gülbahar’s (2007) quantitative study, 56% of the teachers in his study saw computers as useful tools, but only 21% felt confident with implementation in their GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 32 instruction. Though many find technology valuable for teaching and learning, these views do not manifest in their practice (Ertmer et al., 2012; Gülbahar, 2007). Facing the unknown and giving the stage to students can be scary to some teachers. Issues with Technology Integration Digital divide. Most students and teachers have some form of access to technology, such as hand-held devices, but still lack formal training to use the Internet beyond Skype and e-mail. Thompson (2013) and Prensky (2001) made reference to today’s learners as digital natives, because they have been immersed in new technology formats not yet seen in education. But a very real digital divide refers to the division between multimedia literacy, its access to students, and its use in social aspects versus education. Studies of students and technology have found a disparity in the access to Internet and computers for students in low-income households (Madden, Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013; Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004). Though many students and teachers have acquired technology skills through trial and error, one must be fluent in Web 2.0 to take advantage of its many capabilities for learning (Conole et al., 2008; Peters & Slotta, 2010; Thompson, 2013). Warschauer et al. (2004) noted that technology integration, level of instruction, and access need to look similar within high and low-income schools to decrease education inequalities. Evolving technology. Society’s adoption and integration of technology into daily life has been moving at a faster rate than the educational system, often due to district policies and lack of training in teacher education programs (Hodas, 1993). Education is behind in its thinking while society moves at the same pace as the production of technological discoveries. Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Sing Chai, and Tsai (2013) have argued that this discrepancy occurs because the GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 33 education system is complicated and lacks clarity on what technologies would be most beneficial. Teacher education programs. Considering the various demands of the educational field, there is still a gap in technology instruction preparation of pre-service teachers. Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) noted the incongruity in the increased demand for educators to integrate technology and investments in teacher education programs. Some institutions have been ill equipped in supporting new teachers beyond limited exposure in their pedagogy courses, whereas others have provided the coursework and preparation for technology integration (Conole et al., 2008; Staples et al., 2005). With the appropriate funding, faculty support, and refinement of a program vision, pre-service teachers can access the necessary instructional knowledge and practice for improved teaching pedagogy (Staples et al., 2005). Hernandez-Ramos’s (2005) study of Silicon Valley Schools showed that the following conditions are necessary for effective integration of technology into a school or classroom: changing teacher beliefs, access to equipment, placement of technology, collaboration time, planning, support systems, and an open curriculum framework. Instruction transforms tech-savvy teachers and those capable of adjusting to the school situation to create a student-centered learning environment (Caperton et al., 2010; Hernandez-Ramos, 2005; Mouza, 2011). K–12 school systems need models that have shown promise in positively impacting teaching and learning. Promising Practices/Models of Technology Use Researchers have studied models of teaching in which technology was integrated but found that many teachers did not know how to implement it in ways that appeared to transform student learning (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Whereas some teachers benefited from the GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 34 professional development (PD) and reflective aspects of their technology training and were able to integrate technology for content accessibility, they struggled at times to create meaningful student-centered instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Mouza, 2011). Due to the urgency in developing a more technologically prepared and educated society, many researchers have searched and studied models that have shown promise for instructional practices that positively develops teaching and learning. Below is a brief discussion of such models: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); TPACK framework; project-based learning (PBL); blended learning; flipped classroom; and distance learning. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Technology has become an irrefutably important aspect of today’s society; for example, science and technology are now considered gateways to increased career and financial opportunities for students (Scott, 2012). This perception is evident in the current movement for an increased focus on science (S), technology (T), engineering (E), and math (M)—or STEM education. More schools are gearing their focus toward this path, but with mixed success rates (Scott, 2012). According to Karno and Glassman (2013), with the surge of STEM research, science teachers have the opportunity to alter students’ experience by engaging their curiosity through technology and science research. Technology can provide another avenue for student learning, expanding the classroom and knowledge beyond the lecture and more into forms of inquiry (Karno & Glassman, 2013). There is no uniform STEM model for schools to follow; indeed, much seems to have developed from schools that have shown increased rates of student engagement and achievement. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 35 Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework To address the pedagogical and technological gaps in the current approach to integrating technology into instruction, Koehler and Mishra (2009) developed the TPACK framework as an elaboration of Shulman’s (1987) PCK model that incorporated the technology and context aspect. The TPACK model shows each aspect intersecting with one another, influencing the planning and instruction components in the context of the school setting. Teachers, school districts, researchers, and teacher educators are able to use the TPACK framework as a guide for knowledge acquisition in terms of technology integration to improve teaching and student learning outcomes (Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Project-Based Learning (PBL) Based on the new CCSS and 21st-century skills framework, schools are to provide an environment in which students can collaborate with others in problem solving real-life situations. PBL is a model adopted by individual teachers or entire schools; it focuses on inquiry projects that are student driven, and follows a collaborative process that will lead to a product (Bell, 2010; Foulger & Jimenez-Silva, 2007). PBL uses technology to increase student engagement and higher-order thinking through deeper understanding of the content. Some research on PBL with technology has shown that students in this learning environment have outperformed those in the traditional classroom and that English learners have become more engaged in their learning (Bell, 2010; Foulger & Jimenez-Silva, 2007). Blended Learning Unlike the PBL model, the blended learning model is a combination of face-to-face meetings, collaborative learning, and online instruction that is more common in higher education (Behjat, Yamini, & Bagheri, 2012; Zaeri, 2013). Benefits of blended learning are its flexibility to GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 36 adapt to different settings and that the learning occurs through webinars and online collaboration with other students (Christova & Mihai, 2011; Zaeri, 2013). The model shows great potential as it relies on the incorporation of online tools and dedicated faculty. Flipped Model The flipped classroom model has been understood as most of the frontloading or direct instructions being done outside of school, therefore leaving class time for content/skill application. According to Hamdan, McKnight, McKnight, and Arfstrom (2013), the flipped learning model provides individualized learning through the use of recorded lectures or Internet sites, such as TED-talks and Khan Academy. Students return to class prepared with content knowledge and questions that can be further explored through a student-centered approach. The flipped learning model looks to maximize class time through active learning, where students participate in learning communities and construct knowledge as they work together (Hamdan et al., 2013). Distance Learning Learning off campus is the ability to learn from the comfort of your home or a coffee shop and rarely see the professor except via the Internet. Some examples that use such a model require limited face-to-face teaching, and learning occurs on discussion boards (Hamden et al., 2013; Kumar, 2012). For example, the USC MAT program uses Blackboard as an online platform; it utilizes Acrobat software to enable online classroom meetings. In addition, University of Phoenix online learning courses use a similar format but do not require synchronous meetings with the professor. Additionally, assignments are due at a set time; students go online and complete assignments or participate in virtual discussions. Open learning GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 37 arenas have exploded within these last five years, allowing anyone to learn from prerecorded class lectures or Coursera. Critique – Overall Assessment of What has Been Learned In the current education environment, some have taken part in the new trend of adopting forms of technology into their school to prepare students with 21st-century skills. Yet the urgent shift to embed technology into education without evidence of successful models of implementation to support new policy and funding decisions has left many skeptical (Brown, 2012). Technology is but one tool for education to aid in transforming a student’s learning experience; it is another avenue to develop young minds into curious thinkers. Cavanaugh et al. (20011) have recommended having high expectations for teaching and learning as part of the school culture but do not fully describe what that looks like and its impact on promoting technology integration. In addition, the literature indicates that PD needs a focused structure to change teacher beliefs and support their instructional needs (Cavanaugh et al., 2011; Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer et al, 2012; Keengwe 2011; Staples et al., 2005). Yet, there is a lack of specificity about what this support looks like in schools that have been the subjects of study, as well the approach taken—as only some characteristics of what should be in place are provided. It would be in schools’ best interest to review the National Academy of Science’s (2005) “How Students Learn,” Ralph Tyler’s (1969) seminal work, and Thomas Guskey’s (2000, 20002) research to guide their revision of PD plans. The literature reviewed addresses the need for PD that goes beyond using the technology. The goal of a school and district is to build supportive networks and learning communities for teachers to acquire competence in integrating technology into their curriculum (Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Mouza, 2011). Importantly, however, the research reviewed here GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 38 does not offer detailed examples of what this support should look like for schools considering adopting technology into their curriculum. Discussion of exemplary models that can aid in redefining teaching practice and impact on student learning is not taking place in the literature. Though Hodas (1993) and others make reference to teacher training, there is a gap in methods of preparing and training pre- and in-service teachers with regard to technology pedagogy and changing their beliefs about effective teaching. Currently, technology is used as a tool for instruction in the following models: blended learning, flipped classroom, PBL, online learning communities, and STEM (Caperton et al., 2010). Use of these models, though, is inconsistent among schools and districts, showing mixed success rates (Scott, 2012). Also, there is disparity in access to technology between groups of high and low socioeconomic status both inside and outside of school. STEM education initiatives are dealing with the same dilemma faced by technology (Brown, 2012). According to Brown (2012), there is a trend in developing “top-down” initiatives for schools and their teachers without adequate research. Further research is necessary for analysis of student performance and engagement when the “S and T” of STEM are integrated into the classroom (Brown, 2012). Though the use of technology as a tool for enhancing student learning is being taking place in pockets across the United States, many teachers are not sure how to both integrate technology within their lessons and still meet the curriculum standards. This case study will contribute to research that is seeking to identify models and strategies to effectively use technology as a tool across the K–12 spectrum. The information will elucidate characteristics necessary for implementing technology in the school and classroom by looking at the instructional aspect that transforms student learning. By studying a school that has been working to improve teaching and learning with technology, the researcher was able to GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 39 examine the evolution that occurred in students, teachers, administration, and the school. Interviews, observations, and document analysis gave a better view of the planning that led to their achievements. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 40 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to determine what practices support and promote student learning in high-performing urban middle schools with technology as a teaching and learning tool. Review of the literature on K–12 schools in the previous chapter showed that technology use has led to minimal gains in student achievement, and efforts to improve the potential impact are disparate. For example, Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) studied models of teaching that integrated technology but found that many teachers did not know how to implement it in ways that positively transformed student learning. There is need to address the potential impact technology has on teaching and learning, and to identify the practices K–12 schools use to embrace technology integration. This study examined practices that supported technology integration by a high- performing urban middle school with an similar schools ranking above 7 for 3 or more years, a structured technology plan, evidence of funding and partnerships, use of research-based teaching practice, and recognition of its technology efforts. Specific practices examined by the study were instructional practices, student engagement, leadership practice, school climate, collaboration, and accessibility. The literature review addressed all of these aspects as potential factors influencing the integration of technology in K–12 settings. A chief concern with the implementation of technology initiatives in middle schools is the skills and knowledge that teachers and students need to succeed in a 21st-century technological society. Many teachers are not sure how to integrate technology into their lessons and still meet the curriculum standards. Some teachers have benefited from the professional development and reflective piece of their technology trainings for integration of technology; they GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 41 seem to struggle at times with creating meaningful student-centered instruction (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Mouza, 2011). The chapter will present the methodology and the research design used in this thematic qualitative case study. Qualitative descriptive research methodology was used in this study because it provides flexibility in the design and allows for collection of rich data about the phenomenon in question (Maxwell, 2013). This case study will add to the literature by exposing the strategies one middle school enacted to intertwine the various factors that previously have been studied individually as potential drivers for technology integration that impacts teaching and student learning. This case study was one of 11 in a thematic dissertation group addressing technology integration in K–12 schools. Group members met regularly from August 2013 through May 2014 to discuss the most current research and trends of technology in K–12 schools and to determine the purpose of the study. The discussions led to the construction of a research design and instruments, criteria for selecting a school, and revisions of the research questions. Each case study was completed independently by gathering of different types of data, which bore findings unique to the study site. Though data collection was independent, the studies were reviewed by the thematic group so as to identify commonalities and potential cross-cutting findings among 11 schools that contributed to seamless technology integration in teaching and learning. Purposeful sampling was the approach selected for this study because the researchers sought to provide rich descriptions of the schools in their natural setting to increase knowledge access to the processes that allow schools to integrate technology seamlessly. Therefore, a qualitative case study methodology was implemented to generate thick and vivid descriptions of the phenomenon of technology integration within the school that contributed to transforming GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 42 teaching and learning. This chapter will present the conceptual model, research design, and methodology used in this thematic qualitative case study. Conceptual Model Education and teachers are undergoing various changes due to the potential of technology; it is providing another avenue for student expression, yet is still facing issues of disparate digital access and instructional strategies to improve learning (Purcell, Buchanan, & Friedrich, 2013). The thematic dissertation team adopted the TPACK framework as the conceptual model (Figure 1) for the group studies (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) TPACK framework builds on Shulman’s (1987) PCK and illustrates the relationship between pedagogy, content, and technological knowledge all within the school culture. The TPACK framework is meant to clarify teacher understanding of teaching with technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Therefore, the study’s focus was on the intersection between technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge all within the frame of school culture and accountability, to identify how teaching and learning are transformed. Figure 1. TPACK framework conceptual model. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 43 Based on the literature reviewed used for selection of the conceptual model (Figure 1), the dissertation team became interested in the school culture and leadership aspects that may ease the intersection of all components. The goal of the research is to provide practical information that can be replicated by schools working to implement a technology initiative. Research Questions Research questions were constructed through discussions by the thematic dissertation team that met throughout the year. Group members collected research literature that focused on factors that positively affected student learning in K-12 schools. Analysis of the findings throughout the meetings allowed for narrowing the study to the following areas: instructional practices, student engagement, leadership practice, school climate, collaboration, and accessibility. Research questions were aimed at providing descriptive information of occurrences observed in the selected school. The study addressed the following research questions: 1. What technology is present, and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the classroom? 2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning? 3. In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where does the leadership come from? Research Design The study used a qualitative case study design because it is appropriate for addressing interpretations of peoples’ experiences and the meaning they construct from involvement in a naturally occurring phenomenon (Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative case study methods allow for data collection as a participant observer, extracting a deeper understanding of the phenomenon in GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 44 question through semi-structured open-ended interviews and observations in the natural setting (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The researcher is able to collect the “hows” and “whys” from different perspectives and take the role of interpreter while sifting through myriad data to make sense of them and to construct meaning (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Such an approach gives flexibility to the research, grants the ability to revise the research questions, and allows for focus based on the emerging findings. Because the researcher is the primary instrument, he or she must account for his or her own experiences, biases, and personal goals as he or she becomes intertwined in shaping the research design (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). By addressing these issues early on, the researcher can monitor his or her impact on the research data and level of subjectivity so as to not affect the validity of the emerging findings (Maxwell, 2013). The section below discusses the research design developed to address the research question, such as: sampling procedures; instruments created for interviews, observations and documents; and their use for capturing data from respondents. As mentioned previously, the research design began in August of 2013 with discussion of the topic of study. During the following months, the group met to discuss the purpose of the study and to identify the factors that potentially impact implementation of technology in K–12 to promote student achievement. Population and Sample This study was one of 11 case studies from a thematic dissertation. This study focused on a middle school that demonstrated a high level of commitment to integrating technology into instruction and increasing student achievement, which were supported by their school accountability report card (SARC), API score above 700, and their values and beliefs. The SARC report provides the public with important information on the school’s progress on GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 45 academic goals, demographics, school climate, staff, curriculum, and budget (CDE, 2013). The SARC report is required by the State of California annually and ensures that parents and the community are up to date with current school performance. The API is intended to provide local educational agencies (LEAs) with information verifying that schools are meeting state accountability requirements (CDE-API, 2013). API is a single number that ranges from 200 to a high of 1,000 and is based on certain indicators of academic performance and growth on state exams (CDE-API, 2013). In selecting a school that achieved representation of study criteria that would address the research questions, the researchers for this project adhered to Maxwell’s (2013) and Merriam’s (2013) descriptions of purposeful sampling. Criteria for choosing a school were established from findings in the literature on technology integration in K–12 schools. The school selected for this study had to meet five of seven of the thematic group’s established criteria. The criteria selected by the thematic dissertation group included: 1. A similar schools ranking of 7 or better, for three or more years 2. Structured technology plan 3. Evidence of grants and partnerships to support technology efforts and/or P21 skills 4. Evidence of research-based practice in technology 5. A mission statement referencing technology 6. Minimum of 400 students 7. Recognition for technology practice (e.g., CA Distinguished School) The middle school selected for this case study was Endeavor Middle School (MS), a small sixth- through eight-grade public school in an urban sector near Southeast Los Angeles that opened in 1955 and served about 760 students. The area was home to a population of about GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 46 85,000, where the median annual income was $47,247. Student demographic information showed that the middle school reflected the population of minorities that encompassed the community. For the 2012-2013 school year, 58% of students were classified as Hispanic, 34% as African American, 2% as Asian, and 2% as Filipino. Based on the middle school’s SARC report, the major language group in the school was Spanish. Of the school’s 760 students, about 39% were listed as English Learners (ELs) and 12% as students with disabilities. An estimated 90% of students were reported to be participating in the school’s free and reduced lunch program. In 2011–2012, Endeavor Middle School was one of three schools in the organization that had become an academy focused on meeting needs demanded by a competitive society (District website). A partnership with Chevron Foundation and Project Lead the Way provided funding that was supporting the school’s effort to grow as a STEM Academy (school presentation). The chart below tracks Endeavor MS’s API scores over the three years preceding the study: Table 1 School API Scores from 2010–2013 API Comparison School Year API score Point change from prior year Similar schools Ranking 2010–2011 788 33 10 2011–2012 791 -3 10 2012–2013 779 -12 10 Note. Information based on school’s 2012–2013 SARC report Endeavor MS was staffed with 16 classified employees, 35 credentialed teachers, two counselors, four support staff, and two administrators. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 47 Instrumentation To validate the results of the case study, the dissertation group designed multiple data forms for data collection and triangulation. The following are the forms used in the study: open- ended interview questions, surveys, an observation protocol, and a form for document analysis. The dissertation group designed the forms to collect rich data to be sorted as support for each research question. The thematic dissertation team designed research instruments to allow for triangulation and further support findings that arose from the varied, rich data. Interview and Survey Instruments The interview protocol (Appendix A) consists of a teacher and administrator version, each with three sections and three to five open-ended questions. The dissertation team followed Merriam’s (2009) suggestion of developing a semi-structured interview protocol because it allows the researcher flexibility to go deeper and probe for more information. These researchers used the interview protocol with key teachers and administrators who could share their perspectives on technology integration within their school. These key individuals were identified through the initial survey protocol (Appendix B), which consists of twenty questions. The majority of the questions followed a categorical scale that identified people within certain groups; three questions remained open-ended response (Fink, 2013). Document and Observation Instruments Likewise, the document analysis protocol (Appendix D) was designed by the thematic group to determine what forms should be reviewed before conducting an observation and to get a deeper understanding of the school environment. The protocol was arranged as a document checklist based on the research questions and forms that were easily accessible. Some of the information reviewed included the school website, SARC report, school assessment data form GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 48 CDE website, and any other forms provided by the school. Finally, the observation protocol (Appendix C) was developed using a semi-structured approach; it was less restrictive and allowed for the collection of descriptive field notes from an observing researcher as participant (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). The thematic group designed the protocol with the intention of recording descriptive information on the classroom environment and interactions observed between the participants and the available technology. This information would further validate the information acquired from surveys and interviews. Because school climate and leadership practice were also part of the research questions and instruments, the dissertation group and chair considered relating the data to Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames were used to aid with addressing the leadership behaviors that contributed to the school’s culture and sorting the various data collected. The structural frame was used to identify the relationship between the administration and teachers in setting the goals and policies that promote collaboration, student engagement in learning, and access to technology. In addition, the political frame was used to identify how the shared leadership and relationships among the school staff and students were constructed and how they aligned with the school’s mission and academic goals to transform their school culture. Insights on the role of organizing a school and leadership that focuses on meeting their stakeholder needs were analyzed through the human resource frame. We also delved into the interview and observational data to determine how the “right” human capital promoted the school’s mission. Furthermore, the symbolic frame allowed analysis of the school climate and role of all the stakeholders who participated in setting an environment for technology integration that transformed students and their learning. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 49 Data Collection Data collection took place at the school site within a time frame of eleven weeks. Further information was obtained from in-person interviews, electronic mail, surveys, and document analysis that would provide the researcher with a complete outlook of the school site. To get a deeper understanding of the role technology had played in the school and its academic outcomes, the following documents were reviewed: school website, master schedule, the SARC report, the School Site Plan, the Technology Implementation Plan, and sample lessons. The School Site Plan and Technology Implementation Plan were reviewed to identify available resources, partnerships, and funding received by the school. Furthermore, computer lab, cart sign-out sheets, and the daily school schedule provided insights into the perceived integration of technology into the classroom and school culture. As part of this case study, the survey instrument (Appendix B) was administered to all teachers and administrators. The survey was delivered to their school site with a letter from the principal explaining the purpose behind the survey and informing them that participation was completely optional. Teachers were instructed to complete the online survey using the provided web-link. Initial interviews were conducted with school administrators, district administrators, and teachers for this case study. To be compliant with University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB), the researcher gave the participants a consent form and the IRB guidelines before being interviewed. All participants were advised that they could skip answering any interview question or ask to stop at any time. The appropriate interview protocol (Appendix A) was administered to each participant, and they were asked for consent to record each meeting. Interviewees were informed that recorded and transcribed interviews were secure GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 50 and that the confidentiality of each was to be maintained during the data analysis portion of this case study. Observations were later conducted within the eleven-week period in the classroom of four teachers. Each session lasted 30 to 60 minutes in length, depending on the given day’s schedule and focus of observation. The researcher utilized the observation protocol (Appendix C) to analyze the descriptive field notes from the observed activities, interactions, and behaviors displayed by the participants. The researcher followed Merriam’s (2009) suggestions and took note of the school and classroom settings to increase the level of detail in the field notes and to further relate the observations to Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames. By the end of each observation, interview, and document analysis, the researcher dedicated time to examining the collected data and to reflect or write additional comments. Collected materials were kept in a secured location in the researcher’s home. Validity and Reliability Validity and reliability are important points to consider when conducting a qualitative case study. To increase the level of validity in the study results, the researcher was careful to assure alignment between the research design and research questions, a strategy suggested by Creswell (2009) and Maxwell (2013). Following Creswell’s (2009) and Maxwell’s (2013) suggestions, the researcher made sure to collect rich data from both interviews and observations so as to assure enough data were available for triangulation. Triangulation of the multiple data sources confirmed and supported the validity of emerging themes. Furthermore, following Gall, Gall, and Borg’s (2003) suggestions on reliability, the researcher peer reviewed and cross referenced data sources with participants to identify any possible threats and to increase the reliability of the research process. A comparison of the 11 case studies was also conducted to see GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 51 if there was any possible generalizability in the information collected, or if it could be transferable, increasing the validity and reliability of the research (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam, 2009). Data Analysis To inform the research questions, the researcher utilized Creswell’s (2009) suggested six steps for analyzing data and interpretation: 1. Researcher organized all collected data into different groups and prepared it for analysis. 2. Researcher attained a sense of general patterns or themes by reading all of the data, and taking notes about emerging open codes. 3. Analysis began through the use of an open coding system that allowed for sorting of data into sections that shared common language or labels. 4. Researcher developed a clear coding system from the data analysis and used the codes to generate themes that emerged from the findings. 5. The researcher utilized the themes and created a narrative that painted a picture of the phenomenon from the participants’ perspective and the data collected. 6. Finally, the researcher worked to interpret the data analyzed and to capture the essence or meaning of the observed phenomenon. The researcher also addressed any questions that needed further attention. Summary This chapter described the methodology for this qualitative case study. It looked at research design, instruments, data collection, and data analysis in relation to the described research questions. The methodology designed by the thematic dissertation group was set to GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 52 match the reviewed literature and explore how a K–12 school was able to transform teaching and learning through use of technology as a tool. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 53 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS Americans have been exposed to various technological advances since the 20th century; the challenge is to use these technologies to support schools in their efforts to prepare students for the 21st century. Technology has gone from the large desktop computer to minimizing size and increasing the impact on society and consumers. Education is facing pressure from the Common Core Standards, NGSS, and new assessment (i.e., SBAC) to promote more exposure to technology to create career- and college-ready students (CCSS, 2015; CDE, 2015; Next Generation Science Standards [NGSS], 2015). In education, NCLB and Obama’s Race to the Top Initiative have given more funding for technology integration (Economist, 2013). Though the U.S. government is directing additional funding toward digital learning through its “Future Ready Schools” network, the majority of school districts are in the early stages of redesigning learning experiences that integrate technology as a tool (Childress, 2015; USDOE, 2014). Thus, districts and schools have more to learn from schools that have taken on the challenge of integrating technology into their school culture. Education leaders can then compare the methods used by different schools to look at the strategic plan and role of all stakeholders in the decision- making process. The purpose of the study was to provide a rich and thick description of how technology is transforming teaching and learning at a school that embraces technology. This chapter will provide the results of data collected over a span of two-and-a-half months from a middle school working on promoting the success of students from a low-income community through two tracks that implement technology through varied methods. Data were collected from interview participants, classroom observations, school and district documentation, and a staff survey to address the research questions and emerging themes. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 54 Research Questions The research questions used for the study sought to gather a view of how the school had integrated technology into its curriculum and its process for creating a supportive culture. To this end, the following research questions were addressed: 1. What technology is present, and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the classroom? 2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning? 3. In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where does the leadership come from? The remainder of this chapter uses these research questions to frame the identification and descriptions of major themes that emerged from the collected data. School Site The researcher was recommended by a peer to contact the superintendent, Dr. Sue, of Southeast School District to study one of two potential schools. Dr. Sue and the researcher met in the district office. Endeavor MS was a recommended site by the peer contact and Dr. Sue, who then contacted the principal to initiate the process. Dr. Sue additionally stated that Endeavor MS had a new principal, Mr. Luke, due to the previous principal, Ms. JD, having been promoted to a district office position. Mr. Luke provided his contact information to set up an initial meeting for study background and staff meeting. Per Dr. Sue’s interview, Endeavor MS “has received funding from Chevron and Project Lead the Way,” adding, “they are doing some good things.” She suggested that the researcher conduct an interview with Ms. JD to ask what it took to establish the culture and to promote buy-in for technology integration. The section below GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 55 provides a brief background of Endeavor Middle School based on school documentation and interviews with Ms. JD and Mr. Luke. Initial Visit to Endeavor MS The initial visit to Endeavor MS took place in the summer; students were not present due to the campus being closed. Endeavor MS was a public school located within a low-income community full of apartment buildings and some single homes surrounding all sides of the campus. It served about 760 students in grades six through eight, from areas in Southeast Los Angeles, California. The school had been part of that neighborhood since 1955, integrated yet visible to someone driving by the 6.5-acre campus with a wire fence and large buildings. Endeavor MS was part of a small Southeast School District located five minutes from campus. Campus gates opened at 7:30 a.m. and closed at 4:30 p.m. during the regular school year; after- school programs were held for students beyond these times. Table 2, below, shows the school demographics based on data from the SARC report, CDE, and Ed-Data. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 56 Table 2 School Demographics School Categories n % Students 760 Free or reduced lunch 684 90 Special education 91 12 English language learner support 296 39 Socio-economically disadvantaged 684 90 Student ethnicity by group African American Asian Filipino Hispanic/Latino Pacific Islander Caucasian Multiracial 258 16 14 441 6 10 15 34 2 2 58 1 1 2 Staff 54 Administrators Teachers Tech Support Staff Office Staff Custodians Instructional Aides 2 35 1 3 3 10 4 65 2 5 5 19 A central gate opened toward the main office, providing access to administration and office staff for parents and students. On the day of the initial meeting with Mr. Luke, the researcher had the opportunity to interview both Mr. Luke and Ms. JD, the previous principal. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 57 Both were very welcoming. Ms. JD provided background information on the process of having become a STEM school four years previously. Mr. Luke was entering his first year as Endeavor MS principal, and was supported by the assistant principal, Mr. Skywalker, who was beginning his second year. According to Ms. JD, Endeavor MS had gained credibility by becoming a name brand; it created logos, banners, and shirts to extend its reach in the community. The school had implemented field trips and formed partnerships geared toward exposing students to STEM fields, including field trips to the Natural History Museum or SpaceX, partnering with USC’s Sea Perch, MESA, and Project Lead the Way (PLTW). Endeavor MS’s mission and vision was to create a student learning environment that held high standards by providing opportunities and skills to lead its students along a successful path in today’s technologically driven society (school website). The rationale for its vision was “academics to career” through student engagement in meaningful learning experiences that incorporate science, technology, engineering, and math skills. According to Ms. JD and Mr. Luke, the school became a STEM school after being challenged by Dr. Sue to create a themed academy. The teachers had suggested focusing on technology, since it was geared toward college and career readiness. Their original concept was later expanded to STEM because the current educational climate and president were pushing for more science and technology in American schools. Since then, Endeavor MS had formed partnerships with outside organizations, such as Chevron for Project Lead the Way (PLTW), a nonprofit organization working with public and private schools to increase the potential of future engineers and scientists through its STEM- geared curriculum. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 58 The school appeared to operate on two tracks: PLTW and STEM. Some students were placed in the PLTW pathway with specific teachers. This pathway offered students experiences with engineering and technology, required computers for programming aspects, and—at the time of this research study—was on its third year of implementation. Math and science teachers designated as PLTW focused heavily on the technology aspect of the curriculum. Those not in the PLTW pathways were in the school’s STEM and exploratory pathway. According to Ms. JD, teachers incorporated project-based learning activities into their instruction, integrating technology to build on basic computing skills, and drawing on some PLTW activities. Endeavor MS’s goal was to provide all students “opportunities and skills needed to be successful in today's technology driven world” (school website). All Day Observation of School and Staff Although school began at 8:30 a.m., students tended to wait by the main gate to enter school at 7:30 a.m. Endeavor MS was in a busy neighborhood with very narrow streets. Mr. Skywalker, the AP, was known to be the first to open and wait at the main gate; he greeted every student, thus demonstrating his accessibility to parents and students. Mr. Luke, the principal, monitored the student quad until the bell rang. Students appeared respectful to adults, responding to their greetings of good morning. Main office staff greeted visitors and students warmly, imparting a sense of a friendly and open school culture. The researcher had the opportunity to visit Endeavor MS on a Thursday, a day considered sacred for every school in the district. Thursdays were days for administrators to do rounds of teacher observations and get a feel for what was going on in the classrooms. The researcher took part as a participant observer in collaboration, meeting with three math teachers, a support specialist from the district, and Mr. Skywalker. According to Mr. Skywalker, collaboration GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 59 meetings had specific groups; teachers met two to three weeks to go over data and/or instruction. Following collaboration time, Mr. Skywalker and Mr. Luke conducted rounds of informal class observations, each lasting from 10 to 15 minutes. During each visit, Mr. Skywalker used his iPad to take notes of what both administrators observed. Immediate feedback was emailed to teachers with positive remarks and suggestions. Teachers did not appear surprised; they were calm and relaxed during informal visits. This appeared to be a routine familiar to all as a district expectation. The researcher was able to visit about 13 of the school’s teachers, getting a glimpse of the teaching at Endeavor MS and technology’s role in classrooms. Studying Endeavor MS was an interesting research experience; opportunities arose for the researcher to observe the phenomenon in question in its natural setting. Data were collected based on interactions that took place—or did not—between participants and the phenomenon being studied. By taking on the role of participant observer in the various classes, the researcher was able to approach each event through another lens. One has to remember that middle school students have varied experiences with technology, which changes the teaching approach. With that said, the administrators (Mr. Luke and Mr. Skywalker) always displayed a sincere sense of determination and desire to help the teachers and students grow as learners. Administrators were working to provide the tools necessary for teachers to educate students and prepare them for high school and future careers. This observation was important because the researcher was also interested in identifying if Endeavor MS had a supportive school climate for technology integration. Research Participants To achieve a thick and rich description of the phenomenon in question, the researcher secured 11 overall participants to take part in an interview, 16 anonymous survey participants, GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 60 and four observation participants. The survey was introduced to Endeavor MS teachers and administrators during their initial PD day for the new school year. They were assured that participation was voluntary and anonymous, as it would be completed through an online survey link. Out of 35 teachers and two administrators, 16 responded anonymously to the 20-question survey. In addition, the school principal had been approached during the first meeting to recommend teachers as participants for an interview and potential observations. The principal recommended two PLTW teachers, one STEM teacher, and a technology support specialist. When initial interviews had been conducted in the early stages of this study, additional participants were recommended as potential sources of information on how Endeavor MS had developed its technology plan. The researcher emailed the district’s director of technology (Mr. Kenobi) and the technology PD specialist (Ms. Carol). Both district administrators agreed to participate in an interview and to provide insights into their experience with the phenomenon in question. Ms. Carol further suggested that the researcher speak with two teachers at Endeavor MS who varied in their level of technology integration. Mr. Ruth and Ms. Petal, both veteran teachers, were then approached after a school visit; both agreed to participate in a brief interview. The sections below provide a brief description of study participants referenced in the results that follow. Participants were grouped in the following categories: teachers and support staff from Endeavor MS, school administrators from Endeavor MS, and district administrators. Teachers and Support Staff from Endeavor MS Ms. Drey, an eighth-grade PLTW teacher, had taught kindergarten, and sixth-through eighth-grade math and science since she had become a teacher in the district. According to the previous principal (Ms. JD), the year Endeavor MS had decided to begin its PLTW course pathway, Ms. Drey had been pink slipped by her prior school. Though they were aware that Ms. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 61 Drey came from a kindergarten background, based on the interview and her skills, the administrators felt confident in her abilities to pioneer the PLTW pathway. Ms. Drey had started PLTW for Endeavor MS three years previous to this study. She participated in specific and in- depth training through PLTW coordinators at a summer institution before her first year. Ms. Drey stated that she had to dedicate much time outside of her class—planning time to work on her computer and general technology skills—to accommodate PLTW’s dense curriculum around computer work. She found herself willing to learn with the students and developing a collaborative relationship as she implemented the PLTW curriculum. PLTW is a computer-based curriculum specific to each grade level; eighth-grade curriculum involved engineering and robotics. Based on her immense growth with technology integration and as a PLTW teacher, she had become a trainer and model teacher for PLTW. Ms. Drey was very approachable and comfortable with being observed, as she was constantly being videotaped or studied by various entities. Ms. Kent, a seventh-grade teacher, was friendly and approachable. She enjoyed teaching and implementing science or math projects that would further her students’ engineering skills. She was a seventh-grade STEM teacher with a focus on math and science. According to Ms. Kent, she had mostly taught middle school, and was currently on her fifth year in the district. Aside from collaborating with coworkers and friends on ways to integrate technology or engineering skills into to the curriculum, she helped with the school’s new garden. Ms. Petal had taught in the district for 20 years and was Endeavor MS’s sixth-grade English teacher. The District Technology PD Specialist recommended that the researcher interview Ms. Petal to compare technology integration to that of PLTW teachers. Ms. Petal’s ability to integrate technology into the classroom had been boosted by support and push from GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 62 Cheryl Franklin. She had been growing as a teacher in the last few years, taking advantage of the school site PD and requesting Ms. Carol’s individual technological support. Ms. Petal was proud of her ability to teach English in the traditional method but had been working on transferring her outside technology skills to the classroom with much guidance from Ms. Carol. Ms. Ramsy was the new sixth-grade PLTW teacher; she had previously been a seventh- grade math and science teacher for Endeavor MS but the school was looking to expand the PLTW program throughout all three grades. Ms. Ramsy had been part of the district for 18 years; she began her career as an instructional aide, and then worked to complete her teaching credential in 2007. She had been teacher for five years; she was Endeavor MS’s PLTW and STEM sixth-grade teacher with experience working with technology in a previous role as a secretary. Her regular classroom had a computer lab attached, separated by double doors. This was one of three computer labs shared with all teachers. The computer lab was directly adjacent because the design and modeling unit activities for PLTW require computer access. The school principal shared that Ms. Ramsy was recognized as a good teacher within the school and the district. Ms. Ramsy was open and willing to collaborate with colleagues as well as share her experience in integrating technology into her curriculum. Mr. Ruth was a veteran teacher in the district, he taught sixth-grade STEM math. He had taught in Japan for a business division. Based on class observations, he gave the impression of being strict and stern in his teaching approach. According to Mr. Ruth, he was not big on change; he liked when teachers were left alone to teach and people (or policy) did not give additional work—like Common Core. Though he gave the impression of being reluctant to integrate technology, Mr. Ruth had been participating in piloting TenMarks, a new computer-based math GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 63 program for the school and district. Mr. Ruth had been recommended by the district technology PD specialist as a potential teacher to interview as a comparison to PLTW teachers. Mr. Yoda had been with Endeavor MS since he was 18 years old; he was now in his early to mid-30s. He was very approachable, friendly, and open in every interaction. Mr. Yoda was Endeavor MS’s Technology Support Staff. He was on campus when they first introduced the desktops and shifted to online attendance keeping. His role entailed the following: keeping the Internet system working, resolving any office technology problems, supporting district PD delivery to teachers, and being available to guide teachers by implementing technology resources for their instruction. He received training from a district technology PD specialist so he could deliver technology PD, be updated with education mandates, and support teacher development. School Administrators Mr. Luke had previously been an assistant principal in a neighboring district elementary school and a middle school. He had been with the district for 21 years in the following capacities: teaching math and language arts, and serving as a middle school drug and safety specialist and as a special projects teacher. The year of this research study was Mr. Luke’s first year as Endeavor MS’s principal; he had three years of experience as an assistant principal. He was friendly, approachable, humble, and open in his demeanor and form of leading a school. Mr. Luke and his assistant principal, Mr. Skywalker, demonstrated the communication and collaboration skills that can promote a supportive school climate. He was always inviting when the researcher had scheduled visits; his door was always open to anyone on campus. Mr. Skywalker displayed similar qualities as Endeavor MS’s principal; he was warm, amicable, modest, and candid. He made himself visible and accessible to students and parents by being the one to open the main gate for students to enter the campus. The year of this research GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 64 study was his second year as the assistant principal. He had gained knowledge of the school culture and staff, which was a great resource for a new principal. Mr. Skywalker and Mr. Luke demonstrated a collaborative relationship as administrators; it helped that both had known each other from previous interactions within the district. Mr. Skywalker had previously taught elementary school in the district and worked as a special projects teacher before taking on the role as assistant principal in 2013. He appeared to care a lot about what could improve student learning and provided supports for teachers to grow. This quality was evident in his interview responses and interaction with students and staff. For example, Mr. Skywalker stated that administrators should know what teachers are learning in PD to better support them; therefore, he tried to participate as much as possible. District Administrators Ms. JD was Endeavor MS’s previous principal—before being promoted. She began her teaching career in Endeavor MS, initially as a sixth-grade teacher, then as the assistant principal. Ms. JD became the school principal in 2001 and had been recognized for various achievements. In addition, she was part of the school’s decision to shift its focus toward integrating technology and becoming a STEM school. In the year of this research study, Ms. JD had been promoted to a district position but would continue to support Endeavor MS’s new leadership. She had scheduled meetings with Mr. Luke to discuss Endeavor MS’s progress and provide background about the school’s needs. Ms. Carol, the technology PD specialist, was a friendly, knowledgeable, and approachable individual. She had been with the district for a while, a previous teacher who now visited many schools to provide trainings and/or PD on technology. She worked with Endeavor MS teachers delivering Google training sessions individually or as a group. Ms. Carol had GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 65 specific days she visited the campus, and was available to teachers on other days. Some of her responsibilities involved modeling implementation of technology programs in a classroom and guiding teachers as they, too, implemented it—for example, training a teacher how to use iMovie or Google Docs so they could then teach their students. She was a key player in developing the district’s technology plan and piloting new technologies with teachers who were open to learning and growing. Ms. Carol provided her perspective on training and PD that had helped shape Endeavor MS’s approach to integrating technology. Mr. Kenobi was the district’s director of technology. He was a friendly, calm, knowledgeable, soft spoken and approachable individual. Mr. Kenobi’s office was full of technology hardware; he was in charge of the district’s network and managing Internet issues that could not be resolved by on-site technicians. He had been a science teacher for Endeavor MS in the 1990s—one of the first to have Internet in the classroom. Mr. Kenobi explained that he kept the board of directors informed on technology changes that would benefit the district and sought resources that would benefit teaching and learning. He believed that district personnel needed to always consider the teacher’s role when looking at new technologies to bring into the classroom; this notion was helpful in their shift to being a Google District. Mr. Kenobi’s perspective was beneficial to getting a sense of the district’s role in promoting technology integration at Endeavor MS and other schools. In the subsequent pages, participant perspectives on the impact of technology on teaching and learning will be used to support arguments that demonstrate positive or negative aspects of the phenomenon in question. Further, class observations of some of these participants will be used to corroborate findings in collected data from interview responses and document analysis. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 66 Research Question One Findings What technology is present, and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the classroom? The researcher sought to discover what technology was at Endeavor MS and how it was used for instruction. The researcher began by analyzing survey data to later triangulate with interview responses and reviewed documents. This process helped with answering the first research question, referencing resource allocation within the school. Survey responses provided one aspect of the technology at Endeavor MS as it related to research question one. The results shown in Table 3 were compiled from survey questions five and six, which asked about technology resources in the classrooms. Survey data revealed that teachers and students had various technological resources at their disposal, ranging from hardware to software. The available software and online programs for teachers overlapped with those accessible to students during and after classroom instruction. For example, Typing Web and Google Drive are two resources that help with building basic computing and collaboration skills. Use of these programs demonstrated Endeavor MS’s commitment to fulfilling its vision of providing students with “state of the art technology [as] an integral part of the instructional program” (school website). GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 67 Table 3 Survey Question 5 and 6 Results Addressing Research Question One Technology Resources Available Technology Hardware Software Online Programs Teacher use HP laptops Document camera Printers LCD projector Smart Board 3D printer Lego Mind storm Scanner Sketchpads Windows Office PowerSchool (school data system) Data Director Textbook adoption software Springboard Math Imagine it! (for lesson planning) BrainPOP Google Chrome Google Drive Email Edmodo Google Classroom YouTube EDU Student use HP desktop computers Laptops for students Chromebooks iPads Alpha smart/Danas (2 Language! Autodesk Inventor Professional Computers are internet based Inventor (3-D) software Renaissance Accelerated Reader Accelerated Math TenMarks iMovie BrainPOP Google Chrome Google Drive TenMarks Khan Academy Email Edmodo Animoto Google Classroom Code.org Typing Web Pages YouTube EDU Note. Survey question numbers 5 and 6 responses were combined and based on 16 responses, as not all staff completed the online survey. To get a better understanding of the technology at Endeavor MS, the researcher used class observations and interviews to support survey data. When visitors entered an Endeavor MS classroom, they could see teachers and students using common technology resources. For example, 13 of the teachers observed in the initial school visit were utilizing the following: document camera, laptop, on-line videos, LCD projector, and a smart board. Teachers appeared comfortable with their use of the document GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 68 camera and Internet resources. The school’s commitment to providing resources and utilizing technology was evident in the instructional tools teachers incorporated into each lesson. Building a supportive culture for technology integration emerged as a theme from this early data. The researcher continued to seek evidence that supported this theme in the following data analysis. According to participant interviews and analysis of the district technology plan and school SARC report, Endeavor MS had allocated hardware to continue promoting teacher use of technology in the classroom. For example, the school had the following available: three desktop computer labs, one iPad lab, and a mini-lab in the library with 17 desktops and two Chromebook carts. The three computer labs were mainly used for PLTW but were accessible to all teachers. Labs were joined by double doors to the regular classrooms of Ms. Ramsy, Ms. Seven, and Ms. Drey; additional Endeavor MS teachers were able to sign up and request use. Similarly, the district technology plan hardware inventory verified that Endeavor MS had the following hardware: 199 computers, 53 laptops, 30 LCD projectors, 15 smart boards, 20 document cameras, 80 Alpha smarts/Danas, 40 iPads, and two Chromebook carts. Participant interview responses verified the presence of technology resources in the classroom. For example, Mr. Skywalker stated the following when asked about technology resources for teachers: We're having some of our teachers get LCDs. We have 2 or 3 teachers that their LCDs died. We're getting them new and then we're having some reserves because we know some are going to go out, so it's nice to have a reserve. Yeah, [every teacher has an] LCD and Document Cam. Some teachers didn't want the SMART Boards, so we took them out of the classroom. I would say only a handful out of all my teachers actually use the SMART Board. In addition, staff had been informed through email that sixth-grade teachers would be receiving five Chromebooks from the district to support student interventions and differentiation. Mr. Skywalker added: GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 69 Most of our teachers are very willing to learn. They want to learn new things. We just ordered 80 new Chromebooks that are going to be in classrooms on top of I believe 60 that we already got for classrooms. Furthermore, both PLTW teachers (Ms. Ramsy and Ms. Drey) stated they had access to desktops and computer-based programs that supported their implementation of technology-based curriculum, such as AutoDesk. Ms. Drey explained her use of technology: So this year, if students finish their assignment early, they're able to log onto Autodesk, which is the 3D modeling software … [Students] have to know what features to use when designing [a print]. I have them practice a lot on TypingWeb. That's one of the activities that they can do if they're finished with their assignment. So they can do Typing Web. Based on the degree of access to technological resources through data triangulation, there was evidence of both supports for technology integration and a commitment from the school to decrease potential barriers. Though the school had various technological resources available, interview participants—such as Mr. Yoda and teachers—stated that they felt that not all teachers at Endeavor MS took advantage of them. Ms. Carol echoed this perception: Right now, they're [Endeavor teachers] at that point of they're learning how to use the technology because it's new to them. You have your teachers that will more or less …[be] receptive to technology…. Then you have your ones that are saying, "OK, well I'll use it for myself, but I'm not ready to teach with it." Then you have your ones that are ready to start working with the kids. She felt that many of the teachers were still learning how to use the technology—even those on the PLTW track. The level of technology integration throughout classrooms varied based on participation in PD or willingness to learn. Regarding the role and perceived impact of technology in classroom instruction, the researcher cross-referenced data from participant interviews and class observations to survey responses (shown in Table 4). According to survey results, participants varied in degree of technology integration with almost 50% between less than two years or beyond four years. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 70 Additionally, the years of integration correlated to their rate of incorporating technology into daily lessons. Therefore, technology was being used in the classroom for instructional purposes but might have looked different throughout the school based on teacher experience and content knowledge. Thus, data in Tables 3 and 4 provide a limited view of how teachers incorporated technology into their instruction because respondents listed the available resources but did not provide examples of their use. Table 4 Survey Question 10 and 14 Results Addressing Research Question One Survey Question 0–1 years 2–3 years 4–5 years 5+ years 10. I have been integrating technology into my daily lessons for… 6 1 3 5 Survey Question Never Some- times Most of the time Always 14. How often do you incorporate technology into your daily lessons? 1 7 3 4 Note. Survey only includes 15 responses, as one participant did not answer the question. Also, not all staff completed the online survey. A deeper look into how these resources were tools for instruction was explored by conducting follow-up interviews and class observations. With regard to how technology was used in the classroom, the following themes emerged from participant interviews: collaborative learning experience, focus on basic computing skills, extending the learning of math beyond the textbook, and transforming delivery of instruction. In terms of collaborative learning, participants made reference to reciprocal learning experiences between teacher and student and students to student. For example, Ms. Petal explained her experience with technology integration: Sometimes you'll get this star [student] all of a sudden that's really good at trouble shooting with technology and then you'll use that person a lot to help other people. They [students] assist one another more; I see it in the iPad lab. I allow that because some of GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 71 them [students] don't understand what to do and it's hard to get around to 25 kids. So sometimes I'll pick out those helpers that are really smart and they'll help more than I could even do. She added, “It's really the students, they teach me how to use certain applications, we're learning together. [It’s] different from traditional teaching, releasing control to an extent.” Although Ms. Petal did not say so directly, she suggested that technology integration changed the relationship and role of the learners and teacher. Knowledge was no longer held by an individual but was shared among those in the learning community. She noted that students with technology knowledge had been essential to her journey using these new tools for instruction. But this finding referenced the need to provide students with the opportunity to master basic computing skills. Ms. Ramsy, a sixth-grade PLTW and STEM teacher, highlighted the importance of basic computing skills as a foundation for technology-embedded curriculum. Ms. Ramsy indicated that she began the year by exposing students to computer vocabulary and key commands to decrease their pecking behaviors. She went on to say: [The] first two weeks were all about the keyboard, learning the keys, what type of keys, what type of things it had so we did that. I had them do a newsletter so that way they can actually type what they’re thinking instead of copying something so it will be easier for them. Students had been expected to put their learning into practice in the computer lab. Ms. Ramsy’s PLTW design and modeling curriculum required more than basic computing skills, but she found that many of her students struggled if she did not dedicate time to familiarizing them with the hardware and use. The previous principal, Ms. JD, corroborated Ms. Ramsy’s responses, “Before the whole STEM push, we wanted to make sure that our kids knew how to use the computer applications and Microsoft Office. We just thought that was a skill that we wanted our kids to know.” Ms. JD added, “We do have a Chromebook lab. That's to help the kids with the GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 72 keyboarding and the skills to get ready for things like Smarter Balanced and they can use those [skills] for putting together presentations.” Basic computing skills are necessary to preparing students for the Common Core Smarter Balance online assessment and for using advanced 3D software in PLTW. The eighth-grade PLTW and STEM teacher, Ms. Drey, was having a similar experience with technology as Ms. Ramsy. She had students practice their computer skills on Typing Web, a program that shows students how many words per minute they can type. She explained: I use technology in my STEM courses for 1-on-1 work for kids with Khan Academy. We have also used Code.org for the last year. The website lends itself to the Robotics unit in my PLTW courses as well. Code.Org uses animations to be more kid friendly. Ms. Drey’s response suggested that technology resources were available for teachers to implement as needed, and boosting student computing skills was one of those goals. According to Ms. Drey, her class had a 3D printer and Autodesk software received through Donorschoose. Students had the opportunity to design on the program and print a 3D model with her approval. Currently, her students had been working on a medical detectives unit, in which they used temperature probes and a special monitor to collect vital signs, and then research information on a relevant health topic on the computer to connect their learning. Her willingness to integrate technology and embrace it as part of her curriculum—though required for PLTW—supported Endeavor MS’s vision to prepare students for an ever-changing global society. Endeavor MS had also integrated computer-based programs into its math courses to further student learning beyond the textbook. The assistant principal, Mr. Skywalker, described the potential benefits of growing students’ basic math skills with implementation of an online math program in two pilot classrooms, stating: We have TenMarks for math.…We're trying to get everyone incorporated with the technology. One project that I've seen a teacher do is they have to create a video of their GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 73 interpretation of our cells fighting off an infection and the process behind it. They get a go and they get [to] video tape outside. According to Mr. Skywalker, the district was piloting to determine if it was worth purchasing the license for the next school year as a math support. He expressed the school’s commitment to continue growing in its technology expertise and level of integration to promote student learning. When asked about the TenMarks program, Mr. Ruth stated: The program [TenMarks] is for my lower math classes. For example, I use the program to teach them fractions. Students are able to go at their own pace. Currently, I have the math learning activities at a 4th grade level. I use the Chromebooks and TenMarks program for my 3rd period math class (6 th graders). I can choose the grade level, to do fractions, integers, and multiplication. It gives you choice for learning activities. TenMarks allowed Mr. Ruth to choose the learning activities for students to complete at their own pace. Each activity provides some form of hint (i.e., clip, image, or video) to help the student master the math concept. Mr. Ruth was chosen by school administration to be one of two teachers to pilot a computer-based math program, TenMarks, to determine its effectiveness for math intervention. TenMarks is an Amazon-based program that seeks to “reinforce classroom instruction and build deep conceptual understanding and procedural fluency” of math (TenMarks.com). Additionally, the seventh-grade STEM teacher, Ms. Kent, who was also a grade-level leader, incorporated technology into her math and science lessons. She had been using Edmodo since the beginning of the school year as a form of communication and extended learning platform for her classes. Ms. Kent had been introduced to Edmodo by a friend; students could access Edmodo from home. According to Ms. Kent, she used Edmodo to interact with students after school, and, as she explained: [To] teach students how to solve math problems with 2 steps and connect to real life scenarios. [As a teacher,] you are able to post open ended discussion questions on GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 74 Edmodo during Saturdays for participation points. Come back Monday and review the question responses. Her response was similar to that of Ms. Ramsy, who stated that the year’s goal for STEM teachers was to incorporate more Khan Academy, giving students another avenue for practicing their math and supporting the demands of Common Core Standards. Another interesting perspective was from the sixth-grade English teacher, Ms. Petal, who had been recommended as a participant by the district technology PD specialist (Ms. Carol). According to Ms. Carol, Ms. Petal had been a teacher for some time but was gaining confidence in using technology as a tool of instruction. Ms. Petal explained that she used technology in the following ways: I do a poetry lesson usually where they write a poem during Valentine's day and they put it on the iMovie and they illustrate it with pictures. So that's an iValentine…We write what we we're going to do, [on] our project into Pages (an iPad program). I use technology for Renaissance Place. It's accelerated reading where they can log in ... If we're doing something on grammar or something that's relevant that they have on BrainPOP, I'll take my computer and put it on the overhead and I'll do some lessons on BrainPOP. They love that. In retrospect, although Ms. Petal’s level of technology integration did not compare to that of PLTW teachers or Ms. Kent, a STEM teacher, she had her share of experience. For someone still in the novice stage of integrating technology, she showed good progress in her practice. Ms. Petal did express that she still hesitated with certain technology resources but tried to utilize Ms. Carol and Mr. Yoda as a technology support system. The campus provided a safe learning environment for all students and teachers. The campus had classroom wings based on grade and subject area and a quad in which students interacted with each other and staff. From class observation of Endeavor MS teachers, the researcher determined use of the following: Google Classroom, Google Drive, and Khan Academy as online learning platforms. During an observation of Ms. Ramsy’s sixth grade PLTW GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 75 lesson, students appeared to be engaged in typing a document in which they distinguished human needs and wants. Students were observed using the computers to research information and save their work on the Google Drive. Ms. Ramsy had the expectations projected on the class wall with the essential question, “What are our human needs?” She maneuvered the classroom while students worked on their assignments, stopping to answer individual questions. Furthermore, on a second observation, Ms. Ramsy used the LCD projector and laptop to project assignment expectations as students collaborated with partners on creating a Google presentation on a chosen artifact. Students were observed working on trouble-shooting technology issues previously demonstrated by Ms. Ramsy. Their assignments were continuously uploaded to their Google Classroom and Drive that they shared with Ms. Ramsy. Additionally, both Ms. Drey and Ms. Ramsy used Google Drive as a tool for instruction in their PLTW classes. For example, students were expected to know how to enter their Google Drive and Gmail to create documents and presentations, or email the teacher. On a visit to Ms. Drey’s class, the researcher noted that students had been assigned three essential questions on science and technology and were to use online sources to research their responses. Students were engaged in their research and collaborating with their peers when they found a reliable source. Technology appeared to be used for student engagement, research practice, and exposure to the role of technology. On the other hand, Ms. Kent was observed delivering a lesson that integrated Khan Academy, an online learning website. She used the program in her seventh-grade STEM class; iPads had been distributed to students to work as a class on enrolling in their Khan Academy class. Ms. Kent used the document camera and LCD to project directions on registering to Khan Academy and gave specifics on which math activities to try individually. The document camera GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 76 and LCD were common technology tools for instruction in Ms. Drey’s eighth-grade PLTW and Mr. Ruth’s sixth-grade math. This observation demonstrated that instruction with technological tools may add to the instructional approach and to student-to-teacher interactions. Discussion for Research Question One Endeavor MS Teachers showed a genuine desire to help their students. They wanted to give them the best educational experience. Of course, some teachers were more hesitant than others to integrate technology into their learning activities, but the researcher did see them interacting with the technology for teaching and assigning technology-based assignments to the students. Based on data from surveys, interviews, documents, and observations, Endeavor MS had clearly been working on strategically providing teachers with technology resources that will ultimately support their teaching and student learning. Though the administration was working to decrease some external barriers, the level of technology use as a tool for instruction varied across the campus. Students were given opportunities to interact with the technology but the extent of that involvement appeared to depend on the teacher’s experience with technology as it related to learning. Research Question Two Findings What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning? To determine the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning, the researcher reviewed survey data to get a general sense of perceptions from teachers and administrators (i.e., school and district). Participants provided survey responses to questions relevant to research question two; the data are displayed in Tables 4 and 5. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 77 Table 5 Survey Results from Relevant Questions Addressing Research Question Two Survey Question Signifi- cantly 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 8. Technology has impacted teaching in what way? 8 6 1 0 Survey Question Not at all/ Never Somewhat/ Sometimes For the most part Absolutely/ Always 11. I believe that technology has positively impacted the quality of my instruction. 0 4 4 7 16. I believe that technology positively impacts student creativity 0 4 7 4 17. I believe that technology integration requires student collaboration. 0 10 3 2 18. I believe that technology is relevant for both student engagement and student achievement. 0 5 3 7 20. I feel confident when integrating technology into my classroom instruction. 2 2 7 4 Note. Survey only includes 15 responses, as one participant did not answer the question. Also, not all staff completed the online survey. According to survey results, seven of the 15 respondents integrated technology into their teaching; of these respondents, 40% believed technology was influencing student learning. Though a limited sample, the data did demonstrate that those implementing lessons with technology tools believed their teaching approach had changed—as had student creativity. In addition, 11 of the survey participants believed that technology was relevant to student GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 78 engagement and achievement. Survey responses suggested that Endeavor MS perceived technology as having some impact on their teaching abilities and how their students learned. Teachers were using the various resources they were provided, but how technology was integrated varied by classroom. Further document analysis of the school website and district technology plan was conducted to find common themes and supporting evidence of survey results. According to Endeavor MS’s informational flyer, the school was committed to providing students meaningful learning experiences. The flyer stated, “Each student’s academic experience will be enhanced through hands-on use of technology, real-life exposures to careers, and career planning.” Programs were listed for others to see how this goal would be met, providing STEM academics and activities that wove in technological skills necessary to compete in a 21st-century society. Similar to the survey results from Table 4, Endeavor MS appeared to believe that technology was an important aspect in their academics to prepare students with skills that will influence their future careers. In addition, the district technology plan, which guided Endeavor MS’s level of integration, demonstrated its belief that technology positively influences teachers and students. The technology plan stated: Present and future electronic devices will transform our learning and teaching practices far beyond those that have been commonplace for years. Through these devices, access to electronic information will increase the volume and variety of information available to students. It will allow the students to scrutinize the information for validity, accuracy, appropriateness, and relevance. Teachers use projects to teach information literacy through direct instruction for English, History/Social Science and Science. Although this passage comes from the district’s technology plan, survey results indicated that it was also the plan Endeavor MS followed, as it was committed to providing students alternate pathways for future career planning. The perception was that students were gaining critical thinking skills through collaborative projects and guidance from the teacher. Based on Endeavor GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 79 MS documents and website, the school had boosted its partnerships with organizations, such as Chevron and PLTW, which promote technology and engineering skills for their students. They found parent involvement and student engagement increasing throughout the years as the learning became more relevant to their students’ future. To get a clear understanding of the perceived impact of technology on teaching and student learning, the researcher reviewed the interview data to triangulate with survey responses and school documents. During a brief interview with Mr. Ruth about his belief in the potential of technology on student learning, he responded excitedly that integrating TenMarks (Amazon online math program) into his math class had allowed him to work with students individually. He went on to add: Students get excited working on the Chromebooks and using the head phones. They are interested in the activities that are related to math because they are at level students can understand. Now with the Chromebooks … Those things are so cool, you open them up and they turn right on. They seem to really like it. They know we do it Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and they were expecting it today [refers to using TenMarks program]. [Students are] much better engaged than in class with paper and pencil. Students are on their own pretty much. They ask the occasional question but it’s them learning from the TenMarks program. This is my biggest step I’ve ever taken with integrating technology. Mr. Ruth’s response suggested that he saw the potential implementing an online-based math program could have on student engagement and its eventual change on their mode of learning. He made reference to this being his “biggest step” in integrating technology, as indicated in survey responses shown in Table 5, which shows that the majority of teachers’ believed in technology’s impact falling between “somewhat and for the most part.” Connections to changes in his pedagogy were not evident in his responses, leaving some questions about how this might relate to survey responses that felt the effect of technology only “sometimes.” Though Mr. Ruth was implementing the online math program into his classes, he made the following remark: GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 80 I don’t like change. They [reference to administration] left us alone so long here; everything was under each individual teacher’s control. As long as the students were learning and the parents weren’t complaining, we could get through the book any way we wanted. A theme that emerged from Mr. Ruth’s response was teacher efficacy; the belief that his ability to promote student achievement influences the rate of technology integration. According to the principal, Mr. Luke, Mr. Ruth, and another teacher were implementing the computer-based math program using Chromebooks or the computer lab. Mr. Luke said, “We are piloting with 2 classrooms to determine if it would be worth doing full implementation next year. Students are able to get immediate feedback and go back to make corrections.” During the year of the research, TenMarks was a pilot program but Endeavor MS teachers were also embedding Accelerated Reader, Accelerated Math, Khan Academy, and BrainPOP into their learning activities to meet student academic needs. The Technology PD Specialist, Ms. Carol, added, “[Technology] motivates the kids…. I see the kids out there doing some of the things and then that motivates ... It [all] depends on how the teacher's using it.” Ms. Carol raised a good point: the novelty of the technology can only take student engagement so far. How does the relationship and interaction between teacher and student change when technology is embedded into the learning activities? Something was occurring in Endeavor MS classrooms; though not all of the teachers were immersing themselves into teaching with technology, there was clear evidence of changing student and teacher roles. Ms. Carol, the technology PD specialist for the district, stated that teachers who had taken advantage of the technology training, especially PLTW teachers, were showing some change in their teaching. She further added with regard to the PLTW teachers: They're at that point; they're learning how to use the tech because it's new to them. Even the tech that they're giving the [students], even thru Project Lead the Way, they're [Ms. Ramsy and Ms. Drey] just learning how to use it and then incorporate it into their GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 81 classroom. The kids are using it, and the kids are able to manipulate it to use it for their projects … They are at the beginning stages of that. She believed that technology was still helping students learn because they did not get the exposure outside of school. Endeavor MS’s community was in a low-income neighborhood. Ms. Carol further explained her perception of the impact of technology integration on student learning: They're [students] learning how to use all those different things.… Google Docs and all ... Learning how to use the robotics part ... That's new to them and they have no idea how to use it. When they come in and they start using it and then they say, “Oh I can do this. I can do this. I can go home and maybe I can ask for a label robot that I could program at home.... Maybe I could buy that app, or, I can get the free app and use it at home.” Her observation of technology integration showed that students were learning how to use the technology in one setting (i.e., school) but then applying their familiarity by implementing it in another setting (i.e., at home or with friends). In addition, PLTW courses were more immersed in technology, as was evident in observations of Ms. Ramsy’s and Ms. Drey’s classes and interview responses. PLTW is more structured, with each learning activity building on the next for the culminating collaborative student projects (based on interview responses and the PLTW website). Ms. Drey found that PLTW lessons had put her in the role of facilitator, placing the cognitive load on the students. Per Ms. Drey, students began with simple steps, researching initial knowledge and then applying it to diagnose a patient for the medical detectives unit or creating a robot or car in the robotics unit. Students were given the criteria and tools, Ms. Drey explained, “There’s no really right or wrong way for them to complete the tasks but the one thing is it has to work.” The goal appeared to be promoting critical thinking and collaboration skills; both mentioned in Common Core Standards and NGSS. She proceeded: GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 82 The Robotics unit in PLTW has 10 tasks on the computer … Students are working on varied projects [at] their own pace, each task gives them experience with collaborating and team work. Sometimes student teams will do 3 tasks at a time. Students assemble a robot, and then they work on the computer to program it. This gives kids an opportunity to be innovative. [I once] had a student that was legally blind, the parent did not agree with the expectations. But, the student presented, it pushed her to go beyond her disability. No pity points. Evidently, Ms. Drey’s instructional approach had been encouraged by the demands of her curriculum; she appeared to believe that any student could tackle the learning activities if they were held to high expectations. In terms of classroom management, Ms. Drey believed that integrating technology meant that teachers were no longer able to teach from the front; indeed, the teacher becomes the facilitator, and students are in control of their learning. This approach involves setting clear expectations, maneuvering through the rows of computers, and always being available to answer questions or monitor student progress. Ms. Drey, Ms. Ramsy, and Ms. Kent were continuously observed standing behind the students, monitoring student progress. Being behind the students allowed the teachers to constantly track what students were doing by looking at their monitors. Teaching from the front would essentially hide that information from teachers. The three teachers were also observed responding to student questions with a loud voice so that all in the class could hear. This appeared to be a technique they used to avoid repeat questions or to redirect anyone who may have been confused. “It takes time to build the community and structure,” Ms. Kent stated with regard to her experience working with iPads. Ms. Ramsy and Ms. Drey both echoed Ms. Kent’s remark; make the purpose of being in the computer lab clear to students and be explicit about potential misbehaviors, always holding students to high standards. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 83 The researcher observed the phenomenon in its natural setting to corroborate findings from survey, document, and interview data. Endeavor MS teachers were integrating technological tools into their instruction, ranging from using a document camera to accessing multimedia through the Internet to enhance their lessons. To think that teachers in other schools had to rely on transparencies and recopy work on to the board showed how Endeavor MS teachers were being transformed—as was the student learning experience. For example, students had the opportunity to showcase their thinking and problem-solving skills with the use of a document camera or could share their work through Google Drive, increasing the level of collaboration and work revision. These learning opportunities were observed in Ms. Ramsy’s class, as she infused technology into her daily lessons for sixth-grade PLTW students. She was aware of potential pitfalls and addressed them before relinquishing control to her students by providing them print-outs of specific slides to reference as they collaborated with others creating a Google presentation. In addition, Ms. Petal teamed up with her students in brainstorming an outline for their iMovie or Pages projects before releasing them to work on the iPads. Both Ms. Ramsy and Ms. Petal were cognizant of the value of guiding the initial projects to address misconceptions, and then to release control by adopting the role of facilitator. Furthermore, Ms. Kent was observed learning through collaborating with her students on finding an effective method to set up the Khan Academy class, with the teacher no longer being “the sage on the stage.” Teaching was changing as was the learning environment. Ms. Kent demonstrated how the teacher’s role was not just to be a facilitator, but at times to be a collaborator in solving problems. This phenomenon was further observed in Ms. Drey’s class, where students relied on each other to research and support their learning, depending less on the teacher and more on each other—thus, utilizing technology as a tool to collect and analyze GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 84 information. STEM courses integrate Khan Academy for math support in re-teaching lessons, giving students the opportunity to interact with the program and learn at their own pace. Another theme that emerged from the various data was constraints with technology integration. Endeavor MS had various technological resources available to teachers and students; with that, some concerns were raised from the interviews and observation with regard to the perceived impact technology was having on teaching and learning. For example, Mr. Ruth, though excited with the potential of the TenMarks math program, he states, “[I’m going] a little slower than expected [using TenMarks] because I have had to teach some basic computer skills so students can run the program on their own.” The spirit of this remark was reiterated by Ms. Drey and Ms. Ramsy and observed with Ms. Kent showing students how to log into Khan Academy. Ms. Drey stated that “computer skill level [of students] becomes a challenge, therefore, [she] takes time from the pacing to add basic skills to teach the use of the keyboard, basic typing, internet and email etiquette before [they] begin with any” computer-based lessons in her PLTW and STEM classes. In addition, teachers and administrators referenced the aspect of classroom management when integrating technology. When further probing was done on TenMarks, Mr. Ruth added: “Chromebooks are so much better … if you get my kids out of the classroom, everything goes to hell. Then to get them into the computer lab, and get them all settled down …” Mr. Ruth’s comments made some hidden reference to classroom management being a major factor when infusing technology into the classroom. Discussion for Research Question Two The survey data showed that participants were still developing their technology skills and believed there was potential in affecting teaching and learning but that the vision was not fully GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 85 evident. The majority of interview participants displayed a growth mindset in their approach to integrating technology. The changing roles between teacher and student and student to student demonstrated the potential that technological tools have on influencing the learning environment. For teachers to see the potential of technology on teaching and learning, Endeavor MS teachers needed to see what it looked like in other classrooms to change their perceptions and take advantage of their resources. Participant interview data indicated that not all teachers were aware of what PLTW students were learning and creating. On the other hand, the constraints cited by interview participants were real; classroom management has to change when embedding technology into the lesson activities. When the structures are not in place at the beginning of introducing technology resources, teachers will find themselves struggling to meet their learning objectives. Though use of technology is a novelty for many students from low-income neighborhoods, this does not guarantee quiet and compliant behavior; the novelty wears off. Teachers need to consider their approach to teaching with technology and be aware of different student behaviors that may arise as the job of monitoring a classroom becomes more difficult. Research Question Three Findings In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where does the leadership come from? Endeavor MS appeared to have developed a school culture that was collaborative and willing to embrace the challenges that come with the ever-changing education standards. The initial shift to technology originated with Endeavor MS teachers; a desire to prepare students with the 21st-century skills needed to compete in a global society. To determine whether the school culture had been supportive with integrating technology, questions in the staff survey addressed the research question. According to survey participants, the school had provided GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 86 computer labs for them to utilize during the school day and for students to access after-hours. Teachers shared three computer labs with PLTW teachers, and there was an iPad lab, and Chromebooks that could be reserved for class instruction. Participants also identified the following technology policies at Endeavor MS to support continued integration: acceptable use policy, security policy, etiquette policy, and parent contract for usage. Survey results were also collected with regard to supports received from their school site, as show in Table 6. Table 6 Survey Results for Questions Addressing Research Question Three Survey Question Not at all/ Never Somewhat/ Sometimes For the most part Absolutely/ Always 12. My professional development prepared me to incorporate 21st century learning skills on a daily basis in my classroom. 3 4 4 4 13. My professional development prepared me for the use of technology in my classroom. 2 5 4 4 14. How often do you incorporate technology into your daily lessons? 1 7 3 4 15. The administrative team actively supports the integration of technology into the school’s classrooms. 0 0 5 10 Note. Survey only includes 15 responses, as the one participant did not answer the question. Also, not all staff completed the online survey. Though the results are from 15 survey participants, the data show somewhat of an even distribution with regard to the perceived impact of PD on teaching and technology integration. Of the participants, eight staff members agreed that PD had influenced their teaching and resembled the rate of teachers who incorporated technology into their lessons (Table 6, question 14). There was evidence that teachers had buy-in for technology integration but may have still GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 87 been learning how to incorporate it effectively. In addition, survey participants felt that Endeavor MS’s administrative team was quite supportive of technology integration in the school and classrooms. To verify how the school was building a supportive school climate, the researcher reviewed documents to identify supports or strategies implemented to create a technology- friendly environment. According to the district technology plan, the guide followed by Endeavor MS, teachers were provided multiple training opportunities to develop their skills with Google applications and data-analysis software. Instructional technology resources were initially implemented through small pilots to determine if the program would be beneficial for student learning and instruction. The technology plan stated that teachers, administration, and technology specialists were involved in a discussion to evaluate the benefits and alignment with the school’s mission and vision. At the time of this study, Endeavor MS was in its fourth year as a STEM school. To gain a deeper understanding of where the leadership was in Endeavor MS and how it had worked in creating a supportive school climate, the researcher reviewed interview data to triangulate with survey and document data. According to the previous principal, Ms. JD, the drive to integrate technology into the school culture stemmed from two areas: its teachers and the district. She started by having a conversation with Endeavor MS teachers, asking, “What are we good at?” Teachers suggested taking on technology and had embraced the challenge since. The school followed the blueprint for education that had been provided by President Obama and the Department of Education’s push for STEM in K–12 schools. As a school, they had significant support in taking on this challenge—from El Camino Community College, Chevron Grants, and the district itself. They were the first teacher-created STEM school, focusing on collaboration, GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 88 creating, and embracing technology. The school culture spoke to the possibilities Endeavor MS staff had in promoting student success. The school had block scheduling to support its PLTW and STEM and exploratory pathways. Teachers had access to individual and group technology PD based on their instructional needs. The previous principal stated that the initial challenge had been finding the right people to take on the work of starting their Project Lead the Way program. The decision to enhance the level of technology in the overall school plan had been made by the staff four years previously, largely prompted by the Common Core Standards and the desire to prepare students for career and college. In addition, Mr. Luke and Ms. JD both agreed that it had taken “key people in the right positions” to lead the school in its current direction to increase buy-in for technology integration. Such key people were found at each grade level, which was important for dissemination of information and promoting teacher buy-in. When asked who was considered a leader that promoted a supportive school climate, Mr. Skywalker explained: Ms. Kent, she's our leader and she does a lot of technology in the class. For her to do something she'll get it out to the rest of the staff … Ms. Ramsy is insanely good, she's super good, but I would [also] say maybe Ms. X, she could get people to do certain things.… Ms. Drey, she's Project Lead the Way. For math, I would obviously say Mr. Y who's a genius at math, super smart. He knows math. If he says no then I will go with what he says. In addition, when asked if they use teachers to deliver PD, Mr. Skywalker stated: If there's a teacher that I feel is really good at the Khan Academy and during preps and things like that, I'll have them go in and have some teachers come and learn about that. After school, if we have staff development we'll say, "We'll pay you to stay after for an hour. We're doing a Khan Academy program where you can sign all your kids up. We can help you with that." We'll do things like that. Evidently, Endeavor MS administration valued the professional expertise of its teachers and the potential of leveraging teacher leaders to create a supportive and collaborative environment. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 89 Endeavor MS provided teachers with technology support systems meant to promote their school mission and vision. If the school ran into Internet or hardware issues, there was a technology support staff member on campus, Mr. Yoda. Unlike other schools, Mr. Yoda provided support with hardware repair, software use and application, and delivery of PD on Google applications to Endeavor MS staff. Mr. Yoda received training during the summer by the district to support technology integration and reinforce what teachers had learned. He took time to work with a teacher to model the delivery of a technology resource—for example, Google Docs. Once he demonstrated how to teach using the program, he would return during another class period to guide the teacher, releasing control just as a teacher is expected to do with students. In terms of these support systems, Mr. Skywalker further added: You have to get them [referring to teachers] comfortable with [the technology], but then the other thing you have to be supportive and have someone else in the computer lab. Then [teachers will] feel comfortable. Sometimes that's all it takes. Sometimes they're comfortable with the project [but] they don't know how their kids are going to be. I'll be in there or Mr. Luke will be in there. Our computer tech [Mr. Yoda] will be in there. Then [teachers] feel more comfortable doing stuff. That's a big part. Comfort can be them with technology or just feeling supported with having someone around so they don't feel their class is going to be out of control. These interview responses offered evidence that teacher efficacy can be a factor that influences the level of technology integration in a classroom. Therefore, modeling how teachers can deliver technology-infused lessons in a classroom may decrease anxiety about releasing control of the classroom. To continue developing a school culture open to technology, the administration found it beneficial to request the district’s technology PD specialist, Ms. Carol. She gets requested for multiple trainings and follow-up meetings with teachers. Mr. Skywalker explained: We have Ms. Carol who will do training for us, whether it be after-school or on prep. We had training [on Google Docs]. I would have Ms. Carol go and she would train the teachers on it so they could bring it back in the classroom. Now the district has set stuff GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 90 that we have to choose from if you want her to do some stuff in your class or in your school. Most of our teachers are very willing to learn. They want to learn new things. According to Ms. Petal, Ms. Carol had been a great resource for their evolving pedagogy, infusing technology into their teachings. When asked with regard to her role in Endeavor MS, Ms. Carol expounded: When I'm on campus, and they know I'm on campus, they are able to call me in and I can go in and demo. Once I demo ... I'll demo the lesson, and then it's up to them to go on beyond that. Then for the next year, I don't demo that lesson anymore. It's on them to do it, and if they need other lessons demoed I'll do that, but I'll never demo the same lesson twice. She appeared to be an essential part of creating a sense of comfort for teachers ready to integrate technology into their instruction. In terms of the administration’s role in promoting a supportive technology culture, Ms. Drey felt she received ample support from the school to supply resources for projects. She stated: We’ve done fundraisers, for example Chuck E. Cheese. The school and district have helped with seeking out funding for PLTW. The medical detectives unit and science of technology equipment were funded through El Camino College. They gave me a $5000 grant for materials. Chevron gives money to our school for materials. These resources were shared with other teachers. The school had also worked on creating a scheduling calendar for use of the computer labs, iPad lab, and Chromebooks to further support the integration of the various technologies provided by the school and the district. Mr. Skywalker explained that they were in the process of upgrading one of the labs and purchasing additional Chromebooks for the school with funding received from the LCAP and Title-I money. Per Ms. Ramsy, the school supported technology integration by making the necessary changes to increase comfort levels and to decrease any external barriers. Communication and collaboration among administrators, teachers, Ms. Carol, and Mr. Yoda had been essential in their continued growth. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 91 Classroom observation data was then analyzed to demonstrate that Endeavor MS had been capable of creating a school climate supportive of technology integration. In addition, if issues occurred with the network, there was immediate response from Mr. Yoda. For example, Ms. Kent’s class ran into issues with the Internet during the early portion of class. Suddenly, an announcement was heard over the PA system, “Teachers, Ethernet is back up, make sure to restart your computer to log on. Thank you.” This small event showed the benefits of having a school that provides funding for an on-campus IT person. In 10 minutes, the Internet was once again functional. District role in Endeavor MS and technology integration. The district had to be given due credit for having led some of the changes that supported Endeavor MS’s culture and process to integrate technology. They were strategic with their technology plan district-wide and per school site. Mr. Yoda added: This is one of the big things about our district that they’re really organized. From admin, from district office, they do a really good job planning everything, the way they introduce technology. Any new thing that they introduce, they’re really thoughtful about the teachers, the students. They trained; they want to give all type of training. When we introduce this, first they have a heads up that it’s going to happen. It’s not going to be like next month. It’s going to happen maybe in about next year, next school year we plan to do this. In addition, Mr. Ruth explained with regard to his role in implementing TenMarks math support program in his class, "They [the district] want to see if [its] worth it, there are only 12-14 teachers in the whole school district that are doing this.” Taking a strategic approach to disseminating technology instruction and resources had been beneficial for both schools and teachers. The district had also developed a structured PD/training plan for Google applications in all schools (based on a technology plan document and Ms. Carol). Mr. Kenobi, director of GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 92 technology, got the approval of the board to become a Google District a few years previously; Ms. Carol had led the development and training in school-sites. Challenges integrating technology. Though the school culture and support were clear in the staff, students, and parents, Endeavor MS had faced some challenges in the process. Mr. Skywalker enumerated some of the challenges: Financially, trying to figure out where we're pulling some of the money because we have to upgrade one of our computer labs … We were supposed to upgrade the computers so that this one project would lead the way for us. Seventh grade, which we didn't have, last year, could do the modeling. Additional aspects schools must consider include technology hardware, software, and integration into school curriculum. According to Mr. Yoda, the computer system in the computer lab used by Ms. Ramsy’s PLTW classes was slow. Due to the recession a few years back, they were set up on a dummy system. He installed a CPU, a small black box, and connected monitors and keyboards to act as computers. Because the computers crashed various times, this lab was on their list of equipment to upgrade. Mr. Yoda’s experience with maintaining Endeavor MS’s technology infrastructure emphasized how schools should consider installing their own servers or Ethernet system. These changes would ensure consistent, fast connections to the Internet that can serve hundreds of devices at once as teachers increase their access to technology. Discussion for Research Question Three Based on the various data analyzed concerning Endeavor MS, administration and staff clearly valued the potential of technology and its influence on student learning. Teachers appeared collaborative and willing to try new resources if shown how to integrate them into their classroom. The implementation of technology support systems seemed to benefit those who took advantage of the resources. By leveraging teacher-leaders, administration could apprise technology novices about how certain technology programs were transforming student learning GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 93 and instruction. Endeavor MS still faced some challenges: getting people to move beyond the learning stage to full integration of technology resources. Yet, there was much support and adequate structures in place to guide a teacher ready to consider transforming his or her students’ learning experiences. There seemed to be some distributed leadership in the support of technology integration at Endeavor MS. Although district officials spearheaded the effort, school level administrators and teacher leaders also had major roles in carrying out this shift—by supplying teachers with and maintaining equipment, by providing teachers with regular training/PD, and by encouraging teachers to continually find new methods to utilize technology within their instruction. Emerging Themes and Discussion “Getting the Right People in the Right Positions” “Getting the right people” was a theme that emerged from the interview with Ms. JD and Mr. Luke. For a school to consider a shift in its mission and vision involves “getting your key people in the right positions” (Ms. JD). For example, during the first year starting the PLTW portion of the STEM school, Ms. Drey pioneered the program. Ms. JD explained: She's the one who has paved the way. She had the hard job. While she was doing that, we kept our eye open for who out there had the skills, ability, talents, and passion to implement this kind of STEM program for us. Then, you start the conversations and you kind of start recruiting your own people to move into those positions. We kept our eyes open, and our assistant principal, Mr. Skywalker said, "You know I think we have one." He recommended Ms. Ramsy, our then 7 th grade science and math teacher. Ms. Ramsy is going to go down to the 6th grade, and she is going to take that spot of getting those kids technology ready. Leaders should consider such strategic moves and purposes when considering technology integration, looking at the desired characteristics, involving other stakeholders, and placing the right people in the right places to get things moving. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 94 Building a supportive and collaborative culture. Bolman and Deal’s (2003) four frames (human resources, political, symbolic, and structural) were evident in the various analyses of the data on leadership’s role in developing Endeavor MS’s technology-integrated school culture. Human resources frame. An in vivo code arose from an interview with Endeavor MS’s previous principal, Ms. JD, who highlighted the importance of “getting the right people in the right positions.” This remark spoke to the mission and vision that JD and her staff had had when they took on the challenge of focusing on technology and becoming a STEM school. Structural frame. Having a strategic PD plan and implementation plan for the dissemination of technology had taken time. But each piece had a purpose. For example, when discussing the introduction of Gmail to teachers three years ago, the director of technology stated, “There [was] a purpose to my madness.” The big picture was to become a Google District. He started the transition by training teachers how to use Gmail since they would no longer use Outlook. The transition began in the summer and during the school year, trainings from the technology PD specialist, Ms. Carol, and from school site tech coordinators. District planning with a goal in mind helped to designate key people to oversee the implementation of technology among the district and school sites (reference technology plan). Political frame. The district was strategic with technology integration, seeking out funding sources, buy-in, and belief in possibilities. District and school sites learned from the mistakes of other schools and districts when purchasing technology hardware—for example, targeting each school and requesting that teachers pilot technology software before committing to the district- or school-wide purchase. Teachers were not forced to take up another tool, and union contracts did not become an issue because communication lines were kept open between GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 95 teachers, administration, and the district. The political frame also means strategically choosing teachers who would otherwise avoid technology to discover the usefulness of technology and influence buy-in by other teachers. Symbolic frame. This frame entails creating a common vision for the school, and impacting students’ potential in high school and future careers. Getting the board to respond well to becoming a STEM school by branding themselves (board presentation) were examples of what had helped Endeavor MS grow its teacher expertise and a culture that supported technology integration. Ms. JD provided a good example of how building that sense of community and purpose can drive the change necessary to potentially impact their students’ future: Before the whole STEM push, we wanted to make sure that our kids knew how to use the [computer] applications and Microsoft Office. We just thought that was a skill that we wanted our kids to know before they went off to high school. …we want[ed] to make sure that our kids [could] put something together with Microsoft Word, Microsoft Publisher, and PowerPoint. We started off just on our own wanting to make sure that when our kids left us they could put together some basic documents. We've moved so far beyond that…, we wanted to make sure that they were ready for high school. The belief that the journey to increase their level of technological knowledge for the sake of promoting their students’ and community’s future demonstrated the possibilities for change when people are given a purpose. Strategic role of the school district. The district was referred to in five of 10 interviews, as were its role in supporting the school’s continued shift to more technology integration and key people that had driven the shift throughout the district. Mr. Yoda and Ms. Carol both echoed that much had to do with who is at the top, “You have a good head [referring to leader], [and] the rest will work fine.” Though Endeavor MS’s choice to focus on technology had been a few years ago, the district has been a good force behind them. Mr. Yoda recalled: It’s just the people that work at the district office. A lot of them for example, were teachers before getting in those positions. For example Mr. Kenobi, he was a science GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 96 teacher over here… there was an opening for technology when they [the District] were first thinking about technology, he went for it. He [Mr. Kenobi] got hired, see what happened. This guy has made the district what the district is now as far as technology goes. He was a teacher. He understands how teachers think, how they work, what are their needs, the level of stress that teachers have. He can think and correlate and say, “If we do this, let’s do it this way.” So it will be helpful for the teachers, helpful for the students, helpful for everybody else. According to Mr. Kenobi, it had taken the district 20 years to get where it was, with a lot of revising the purpose of technology and implementation, always considering the potential on teaching and learning. The technology plan provided specific implementation strategies for each step to be taken in the subsequent two years and identified key personnel to complete these tasks. The district plan had some big objectives: getting 70% of teachers using some form of technology by 2017, which appeared realistic if it continued developing its PD plan. After analyzing the district’s implementation plans for each of its objectives, it was interesting to read about the various stakeholders involved in each piece of the process. The plans contained the following: activity, timeline, person responsible (district director of technology, district technology resource specialist, technology aides, school site administration, and teacher), monitoring and evaluation method, and evaluation instrument. Below is an example of what could be found in their technology plan: Activity: Identify teachers that need training in integrating technology into the curriculum and who need to focus on information literacy Timeline: September 2014 through June 2017 Person in charge: District Technology PD Resource Specialist (aka, Ms. Carol) Evaluation and instrument: District Tech Survey Results Though this is a small view of the large technology plan document, the district was clearly committed to promoting technology integration in its schools. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 97 “It all boils down to training teachers on technology” Reviews of the data indicated that successful technology integration is all about training and PD being delivered in the school site and district wide for teachers to gain knowledge and confidence in their abilities. As such, effective and strategic PD and training that will affect teaching and transfer over to student learning appeared to be one goal of the school and the district. This plan was evident from the district technology plan, administrators’ interviews, class observations, and the school mission and vision. Though the in vivo code indicated training, as did many people in their interview responses and documents, PD could be considered part of this section. Based on research on PD and training, the school and district were clearly teaching teachers how to use technology in the classroom when they moved up in the Google trainings. Google 1 is training and PD together but the goal of Google 3 and 4 is to teach teachers the application and see how the skills can transfer to students in order to reshape their learning. The initial steps in technology training are similar to teaching someone to ride a bike. It takes practice for it to become familiar, as evident in the school’s demand for technology PD and the district’s push for the spiraling of sessions where needed. When asked about the PD plan, Ms. Carol described the following as the approach to technology training: Google 1 is learning how to use Google. Right now, we have 8 bit trainings that we're doing right now. We first started off 2 years ago, Google 1. Then the next year, we added Google 2. Now we're at Google 3. Google 1 is basic Drive, basic Docs. Then we go onto ... Google 2 [which] is Google apps ... Some of them, but we're staying within Docs and Forms. Then Google 3 is integrating it into your classroom. The district’s shift to Google as its main platform for communication and online software explains the PD approach. The district’s objective was to have 70–80% of its teachers integrating some form of technology into instruction by 2016–2017. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 98 Building teacher capacity. This theme emerged from the various interview responses from Endeavor MS teachers, administrators, and district administrators. Building teacher capacity should be one of the goals of a school working to shift teaching and learning, and to provide multiple supports and resources relevant to the needs of teachers, students, and schools. A school’s ability to embrace technology into its culture and instruction can be influenced by the method taken to build teacher and administrator capacity. As for administrators, Mr. Skywalker shared, “If you're not good at something, get good at it or at least learn with the teachers and be able to collaborate and discuss things with them.” The administrator can, in turn, build teacher capacity, making them feel part of the learning/teaching by approaching those with experience embedding technology into their teaching. By providing opportunities for them to teach their peers, administrators are building their teachers’ efficacy. Therefore, Endeavor MS administrators requested that Ms. Carol (district) be available on Fridays to deliver specific Google training for teachers during their preparation periods. She was also available by teacher request to model implementation of such programs as Google Docs, Edmodo, iMovie, and other various programs during one class period. Then, Ms. Carol would stay to observe the teacher deliver the same lesson in another period to increase comfort level with technology and classroom management. In terms of on-site technology support staff, the district had immersed them in training that would later be delivered to teachers. They were provided the same knowledge teachers required to help with weaving technology resources into instruction. For example, technology support staff needed to be provided clear goals for both on-site trainings and modeling use of the various resources. Funding for such supports came from categorical funds; the technology support staff dealt with more than fixing the printer, but also with the instructional technology GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 99 piece. Based on the Endeavor MS technology support staff, the researcher saw the role of the usual “IT guy” expanding, including these employees in teacher trainings, supporting the district and school overall technology plan. Teacher Efficacy Self-efficacy is a term that refers to one’s belief in his or her ability to succeed at a given task. For this project, self-efficacy referred to a teacher’s comfort level and having a positive outlook on his or her abilities in terms of technology; this theme emerged from the data (interviews, observations, and survey). Teacher beliefs can make an impression on their ability to change their practice. According to Bandura (1997), individuals with higher levels of self- efficacy seem to be more confident in their abilities to succeed, persist, and be less discouraged by prior failures compared to those with low efficacy. Such traits became evident in the data collected from participants. For example, Ms. Ramsy, Ms. Drey, and Ms. Kent would be considered as having high-level technology immersion classes, whereas Ms. Petal was at the mid-level to “I’m willing to try,” and Mr. Ruth was at the lower spectrum, “Just wetting his toes.” Ms. Petal remarked of her tech use: I've learned a lot and I'm capable of really taking them [referring to her students] to the labs myself but it's an ongoing process of learning more and more each day. I didn't know anything when I started. Nothing, I would not use technology in the class. So, Ms. Carol came in and instructed me on how to use certain programs, for example, doing grades on PowerSchool, using website to show homework, and iMovie. Total experience makes a difference. You can shoot from the hip a lot when you've been doing it for years. The confidence that I have infiltrates to the kids … That's taken years. This feeling was shared by those who appeared to feel comfortable in their ability to integrate varied technological resources into their instruction. Ms. Petal’s efficacy as a teacher integrating technology had increased compared to that of some of her colleagues, evolving her own knowledge and pedagogy. Research has found that teacher efficacy can deter their ability to GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 100 transform their practice. By promoting teacher efficacy levels and their role as developing leaders, positive changes in teaching and learning can potentially occur in schools. According to the data, the level of efficacy seemed to influence the respondents’ level of integration and ability to experiment with new technologies. For example, Mr. Ruth resembled the typical veteran teacher who was hesitant about integrating technology or other changes— comfortable in his ways. If a teacher like Mr. Ruth can implement the TenMarks computer-based program and likes its potential on student learning then maybe similar teachers would buy in to the program. His responses at times echoed the second-order barriers addressed by Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) that limit a teacher’s ability to try new teaching methods. Ertmer et al. (2010) stated that there is potential in changing the efficacy level of teachers but that schools and organizations need to improve their method of increasing knowledge of integrating technology into instruction. The teachers’ efficacy in technology integration was visible in their explanation of how they addressed student gaps in technology literacy and mode of scaffolding the technology-integrated lessons. Summary Analysis of data from a staff survey, school documents, multiple interviews, and school and class observations showed that Endeavor MS was continuously seeking to improve its approach to integrating technology into instruction—but it was still a work in progress. The school provided teachers with technological resources and was looking to increase them, thanks to LCAP measure and district supports. Teachers were using technology tools for instruction, interacting with them as they delivered content, but the degree to which it was transforming the role of the teacher fluctuated throughout the school. Based on interview and observational data, PLTW teachers could attest to their instruction changing to more student-centered approach. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 101 Those who took advantage of the PD/training supports offered by the school were also seeing a change in their students’ engagement and learning, demonstrating that a collaborative relationship is created when the teacher gains confidence in his or her capacity. Based on the TPACK model and data collected on Endeavor MS, the school demonstrated parts of the framework but appeared to still be working on shifting teacher pedagogy to influence student learning. The district technology plan revealed that it would take time for Endeavor MS to be fully integrated—but its current steps showed much potential for revolutionizing teacher instruction and learning. After analyzing the survey responses, interviews, school documents (i.e., website, technology plan), and observations, the researcher turned to the following question: how is the research conceptual model (TPACK framework, Figure 2) reflective of the school? Figure 2. TPACK framework – Research conceptual model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) The model fits in with Endeavor MS in the following ways:  Pedagogical knowledge is present—veteran teachers and teacher leaders create a supportive system for new teachers to grow their pedagogy through collaboration GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 102  Content knowledge—the school has weekly content collaboration meetings to support teacher growth  Technological knowledge—teachers are capable of integrating certain forms of technology into their instruction, the majority for transmission and some sections for student-centered learning The school was continuing to meet and evolve regarding technological pedagogical knowledge with the help from district administrators and PD. In addition, technological content knowledge area was developing in many Endeavor MS teachers. Unlike PLTW and some of the STEM teachers, the remaining teachers were learning to understand which technologies could specifically support their content (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The emerging themes demonstrated that a shift to embracing technology into the school culture and teaching can lead to change in the learning environment and role of learners and teachers. This is important for schools from similar demographics seeking a planning process and model as they work to meet the demands from CCSS and NGSS. Being selective with the key individuals to hire as part of a school and district can promote or hinder progress toward integrating technology that will produce positive student learning outcomes. In addition, leadership is an essential piece in selecting the right people for the right positions as it is important for identifying teacher needs and how to address them. Bolman and Deal’s four frames were evident in Endeavor MS and the districts approach to growing their teachers and promoting student learning. Though cost will always be an issue with regard to technological resources, Endeavor MS and its district showed how training and developing their teachers leads to building teacher capacity. Having technology based PD and training sessions led by teacher leaders and GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 103 technology support personnel has potential with increasing buy-in from new and veteran teachers. With that, teacher efficacy is built as the other aspects are planned strategically to transform learning and teaching. The end goal is to continue progress toward meeting the shared mission and vision that seeks to promote student learning and their future lives. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 104 CHAPTER FIVE: OVERVIEW Confronted with demands from new standards and pressure to create a more competitive work force, schools will be sought out by various vendors of new technologies that promise to improve student achievement rates (The Economist, 2013). An educator can easily search the web and find considerable amounts of research, conferences, or trainings on educational technology to boost his or her technological knowledge. Although many of these outlets describe the technology and its potential application in the classroom, they fail to go into depth in demonstrating how—in the long term—teacher pedagogy will be transformed so as to further student learning. Some schools have made errors in purchasing software or hardware without conducting in-depth research on the purpose of the technology and how to strategically implement it so as to truly shift the pedagogical paradigm of teachers (Schwartz, 2014). As a result, schools are left with carts of Chromebooks or iPads that are used as a replacement tool, replacing handwritten essays with typed essays but not adding anything of substance to the learning activities fostered in the classroom. Therefore, there is a need to study how schools have managed to transform teacher pedagogy and learning while working to integrate technology as a tool for instruction. The limited information on how technology impacts teaching and learning was the driving force for this thematic dissertation study. Purpose of the Study This study examined an urban middle school in Los Angeles County that had embraced technology as part of its mission and vision as a STEM school and had managed to change the level of instruction and student learning through this dedication to technology. The purpose of the study was to determine the factors that led to creating a technology-supportive school culture that transformed the instruction and student learning environments. A thematic dissertation team GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 105 of 11 researchers at different schools developed a research design aimed at addressing technology resource allocation, forms of integration within classroom, perceptions of the impact of technology on teaching and learning, factors that contribute to creating a supportive school culture, and the source of leadership around this school movement. Significance of Study With schools under pressure to increase technology integration (i.e., CCSS, NGSS, and 21st-century skills), educational technology has become a hot-button issue in the discourse on education. Thus, this case study is significant because it was geared toward providing districts and schools potential steps to developing their technology integration plans. The study seeks to inform practitioners and policymakers of the decisions and actions that helped one middle school in its shift to integrate more technology to meet the new demands of a global society. Although this is but one case study from a group of 11, some emergent themes may provide potential knowledge of how technology can be appropriated at the school site. They include: “getting the right people in the right positions,” building teacher capacity, district as a catalyst, and focus on PD/training. There is even greater potential in identifying significant findings once the 11 thematic case studies are reviewed to compare emerging themes. Research Methodology The study was part of a thematic dissertation team comprised of 11 members. A qualitative case study approach was taken for data collection, with the researcher implementing semi-structured open-ended interviews and observations in the natural setting to extract a deeper meaning of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The researcher was able to collect multiple perspectives and adopt the role of interpreter as she sifted through GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 106 the myriad of data to construct new meaning around the research questions (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). To better inform these research questions, data were collected from 11 interviews, seven class observations, a staff survey, and review of school and district documentation. Creswell’s (2009) six steps of data analysis were followed for data organization, coding, and analysis. Triangulation of the various data sources was conducted to increase the validity and reliability of the findings and identification of emerging themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Nvivo 10 software was also used to help with organizing the collected and coded data. The researcher spent 11 days within a 10-week span visiting Endeavor Middle School to collect observational and interview data. The researcher also visited the district office to meet with potential sources referred by interview participants. To get a better understanding of the phenomenon, the researcher interviewed participants on location and conducted observations once a week. Conclusion In this section, the setting of the study is reviewed to provide justification for the school site selection. Then, the themes that emerged in Chapter 4 are reviewed, describing key take- aways that schools and districts similar to Endeavor MS might glean from the investigation. The researcher sought to find a public school that was embracing technology in its mission and vision and that would resemble the student population found in many Los Angeles County public schools. Though schools within higher income areas and/or those with better access to technology may offer qualitatively different answers to this study’s research questions, Endeavor MS was selected based on equity. That is, understanding how technology can be GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 107 successfully integrated into (and through it, transform) pedagogy is perhaps of even greater importance in schools serving low-income students, many of whom have less access to technology at home and thus might benefit even more greatly from technology-based learning activities at school. Therefore, the researcher chose to focus on a school serving low-income students under a constrained budget so as to provide other, comparable inner city schools in the LA area examples and ideas that might be more applicable to their own contexts and needs. Endeavor MS met five of the seven established criteria for school selection. It had a similar schools ranking of seven or better, a structured technology plan, evidence of grants and partnerships to support technology, a mission-vision statement referencing technology, and an enrollment of over 400 students. However, as the study continued, the researcher learned that the school had two tracks with different levels of technology integration and was under program improvement (PI) status. Nonetheless, analysis of data from Endeavor MS produced insightful results for each research question. Endeavor MS was a public middle school in a small district that had been under PI status since 2009—due to not meeting AYP-federal targets for English and math. Despite this designation, the school maintained a drive for improvement, coupled with a commitment to integrating technology in classroom instruction. Teachers and administration had a collaborative nature that helped with accomplishing their goals. However, they faced some challenges ahead as they worked on training all teachers on new technologies meant to promote student learning. Administration made it one of its goals to continue promoting technology PD for its teachers. For example, administrators of Endeavor MS scheduled the district PD specialist to visit the school to provide teachers individual support and coaching in the use of instructional technology. In addition, the supplementary fund received through the LCAP allowed the school GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 108 to increase the number of resources for students and teachers. The school, however, found itself needing to focus on providing opportunities for teachers to learn from each other to continue building capacity among the staff. Endeavor MS demonstrated a desire to improve its teachers’ efficacy by providing opportunities for success and strategic PD with technology. These examples further support comments made by researchers and education media outlets that a teacher needs opportunities to “focus on using technology to support learning goals” (Scherer, 2011, p. 16). If teachers are expected to transform their approach to delivering instruction, schools must provide the time and space for experimentation, collaboration, and reflection on the role of technology in the classroom—and this was a goal of Endeavor MS Teachers need to be willing to ask questions, learn from others, and not be afraid to take risks. According to Mr. Skywalker, asking for help and knowing the resources in your school are essential to starting the process of learning how to integrate technology. He believed—as was also mentioned by Mr. Luke and Ms. Carol—that teachers must be willing to slowly incorporate and develop clear expectations for technology use through gradual implementation. As for administrators, not being technologically savvy does not hinder teacher growth if they are open to learning. Administrators have to be a model for the staff by taking part in the PD or trainings and learning with them. In addition, various interviewees made reference to buy-in: if one expects teachers to engage in the technology PDs, administrators and teacher leaders have to continuously support newbies (or novices). As per Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010), a teacher’s willingness to learn is but a second-order barrier that deals with a teacher’s belief in his/her ability to do well. Yet, the interview data demonstrated that four of the five interviewees had taken it upon themselves to access the available PD and additional sources that would improve their technological skills and GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 109 ability to incorporate technology as a tool for learning. According to Denler et al. (2010), this behavior offers an example of self-regulating behavior by teachers. It relies on the individual’s ability to set goals, self-monitor his or her progress, and have self-judgment of his or her mastery of the goal. Ms. Ramsy’s, Ms. Kent’s, and Ms. Drey’s teaching experiences helped them learn to advocate for themselves and their students, making them capable of meeting student learning needs. To create a school climate that embraces technology and the challenges that come with it, findings from this study suggest that administration and all staff must take part in the planning and decision process. The decision-making process and actions taken by Endeavor MS staff and their district had moved them forward as they worked to attain their desired school vision. Such actions speak to the emerging theme in Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frames: taking a human resource and structural approach to making decisions on technology helps foster a collaborative environment. Collaboration among staff and the district were important factors in shaping the school’s direction and continued growth in student learning. After analyzing the various data and reflecting on Endeavor MS’s progress, the researcher recognized that the school and district had put forth great effort to provide teachers various technological resources and created opportunities to include teachers in this process. For example, administration typically discussed potential changes with its staff and used its feedback to make final decisions. In the end, they were working to continue growing a collaborative culture that seeks to improve their students’ learning experiences. Teacher-leaders were leveraged to gain support from others as they showed the benefits of infusing new technologies into their instruction—such as Khan Academy for math support. In addition, the researcher learned that the district continuously asked for teacher feedback on the current PD plan and GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 110 technology resources that had been disseminated throughout the year. Teachers appreciated that those in the district took teachers’ perceptions into consideration before making major changes. Even when schools and districts reduce external barriers for teachers, in terms of technological resources, findings from this study suggest that the level of technology integration and perceived impact on teaching still varies among teachers. Though the researcher was limited to observation of four classroom teachers in Endeavor MS, the availability of resources did not appear to be the major detractor for technology integration. Teacher beliefs and efficacy in the purpose and value of technology as a tool for instruction emerged as a theme in the research. Teacher beliefs and efficacy appeared to influence teachers’ openness to and integration of technology in their instruction. Those who had been immersed in technology—like the PLTW teachers—were willing to learn new technologies like Google Classroom, whereas other teachers seemed reluctant even to show their lack of technology knowledge. For example, on the one hand, Ms. Kent and Ms. Petal were open to learning from their students and to creating a collaborative learning partnership; both saw a benefit in changing their approach to teaching. On the other hand, Mr. Ruth, a veteran teacher, was not open to change and was hesitant to admit that technology integration could influence student learning; his concern was losing control of the classroom. In contrast, Ms. Petal, who was also a veteran teacher, took advantage of the multiple resources provided by the school and the district technology PD specialist (Ms. Carol) to improve her instruction. These findings and participant responses left the researcher pondering the following questions: how is it possible to encourage teachers to experiment with new tools in their teaching? How can experimentation (and the vulnerability inherent to it) be cultivated as part of a school culture? How can administrators effectively model the potential of technology, and help teachers move beyond the novel to truly transform student learning? The researcher’s GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 111 findings are further supported by Ertmer’s (1999) study on barriers to technology integration. A teacher can be provided all the technological resources possible, even removing first-order barriers for technology integration, but that does not guarantee that the technology will actually be used in ways that are impactful for student learning (Ertmer, 1999). Teachers must be taught how to teach with technology—beyond simple applications such as creating PowerPoints and typing essays. There is much potential in Endeavor MS’s continued growth as it focuses on the “T” in STEM. Yet, schools need to continuously ask, “How is the technology transforming teaching and learning?” When implemented fully, technology has been shown to have the power not only to bolster and support, but also to change pedagogy to become more student-centered. However, teachers, administrators, and district administrators must reflect on how the school environment has changed to support authentic learning in which the cognitive load is placed on the student not the teacher. Finally, this study found that when teachers at Endeavor MS fully integrated technology into their curriculum for deep—as opposed to superficial—applications, it seemed to promote more student-centered instruction. Students became active participants in their learning and the teachers acted more in the role of facilitator. For example, during observations of PLTW teachers and Ms. Kent, students were continuously interacting with the technology and their peers as they worked on a project while the teacher maneuvered the classroom to clarify any misconceptions. Students had access to the project expectations of their Google Drive and were savvy enough to research answers to their questions so that the teacher was able to focus on students who were still mastering basic computing skills. The researcher saw peers helping each other in responding to typical questions that a teacher would answer. These findings provided an example of the potential technology has in transforming teaching, learning, and the role of the learner. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 112 Implications Education is continuously changing, as are the various technologies available to teachers and students outside of school. Teachers and students are deeply immersed in technology and in experimenting with its many capabilities—but such inquiry does not appear to be occurring in the classroom. More importantly, in an educational climate that has adopted new standards and is pushing for 21st-century skills, schools must encourage teachers to embrace and integrate technology into their curriculum to ensure students are well-prepared for future careers and college experiences. That said, schools and teachers need to form collaborative relationships in which they can agree on specific technology resources that will promote student learning, as the teacher’s role transforms into that of a facilitator. Schools also need to be reflective about integrating technology and developing a supportive school climate. To this end, they must consider the following when piloting programs: what transformation has occurred within the teacher and his/her approach to teaching? How has student learning changed from traditional teaching methods? Has the classroom environment changed to a student-centered model? In addition, schools should contemplate dedicating time to teach teachers how to use and integrate technological resources into their curriculum. This is a learning process, and as such, teachers need to be afforded opportunities to play with the available technology and explore its instructional possibilities. According to Hatten (2014), effective school leaders consult teacher opinions and suggestions in planning their PD and technological goals and make changes based on needs that teachers identify. This takes significant work, constant reflection and revision, and persistence. The goal for PD in technology-based instruction is to take students beyond the basic keyboarding activities. Student learning has transformed when teachers have learned to create lessons that ask the students to GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 113 create, innovate, and adapt to their individual learning. Such development of instructional practice with technology thus requires deep, ongoing, collaborative opportunities for teacher learning. PD that effectively addresses the instructional role of technology should include: spiraling of key ideas, basic computing skills, time for teachers to “play” with the technology, opportunities to collaborate with colleagues, examples of how to implement, and what technology in the classroom can do. Teachers may have the content and pedagogy, but technological knowledge is required to have true impact on instruction and student learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The TPACK model makes reference to this aspect but the framework has limitations, as it does not provide clarity on the characteristics needed to develop each of the major domains. Teachers are being asked to adopt new skills and to feel comfortable implementing them; not everyone is willing to swiftly embrace technology. How do we encourage reluctant teachers to adopt an experimental mindset—a willingness to take risks and explore the potential not only of new tools, but also of new approaches to teaching? A school and its staff must embark on a journey of creating a culture of learning and strategic risk-taking when exploring the possibilities of various technology resources. Teacher Education Programs and Technology Teacher education is being scrutinized for not preparing teachers to teach students the 21st-century skills necessary to succeed in this technological and competitive world. Going beyond the use of technology as a transmission tool, teacher preparation programs need to recognize that the educational system is changing to adapt to needs of Common Core and NGSS. When Endeavor MS teachers and administrators were asked about the perceived impact their teacher education programs had on their technology skills, the majority stated they had not GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 114 received any formal training before entering their first year as an official teacher. Most of their knowledge of computers appeared to have come from a course taken in their undergraduate studies or on the job. Teacher education programs must reconsider their approach to immersing pre-service teachers into teaching, giving them opportunities to shadow a teacher who integrates technology into his/her curriculum seamlessly. Experiences with effective teachers who have created student-centered environments have potential to influence pre-service teacher’s perceptions of teaching, learning, and the role of technology. Recommendations for Endeavor MS After interviewing Endeavor MS’s principal and assistant principal, including Ms. Carol from the district, I got the sense that teachers wanted to interact more with technology and use Ms. Carol as a resource. Encouraging Endeavor MS teachers to integrate technology into their curriculum to promote student learning was an obvious goal for the administration and district. The administrators had already provided a model through Project Lead the Way, which facilitates teachers in directing some project-based learning that incorporates technology; this experience, in turn, would prepare students for high school and their future. But, Endeavor MS has its work cut out for it in order to reach its goal. Administrators should show teachers examples of student work and projects that were created in classrooms that have already integrated technology. Giving technology-savvy teachers a platform for displaying the potential of technology for student learning and their planning process could encourage others to experiment as well. After reading Tom Bonnell’s (2014) article, “An Essential Question for Developing Student-Centered Classrooms,” the following question resonated with insights from observations of instruction at Endeavor MS and with subsequent reflections on the teaching practice: “What GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 115 are teachers currently doing in their classrooms that they could turn over to their students to do themselves?” If teachers want to truly transform student learning, technology use in the classroom should go beyond serving as a replacement tool. Teaching and lesson planning should be designed to transfer the cognitive load more onto the student and less on the teacher. Students should learn through phases or tasks but then be expected to apply or create something with that newly gained knowledge—not just answer worksheet questions. PTLW gives the impression that teachers are to create learning activities that will allow students to research new knowledge, which is then used to collaborate with others in solving a problem or creating a model. By the same token, when teachers are in the early stages of technology integration, they need to learn how to use the technology, see how it would benefit student learning, and collaborate in lesson planning to see a change on the teaching. With that effort, the transfer of the new knowledge would begin to shift to the student. Recommendations for Further Study Though this is one of 11 case studies, this researcher identified best practices as the school continues to grow as a STEM school that embraces technology. The study provided examples of decisions made by the school and district that have influenced teaching and learning as teachers integrated technology. Yet, additional recommendations and areas that arose from the findings would benefit from further research. Based on the current educational climate, developing a teacher’s technological pedagogy has not been a major aspect in the pre-service preparation programs that many teachers experience prior to entering the field. This theme emerged from data analysis from Endeavor MS participants. A common remark from participants was that technology integration had not been covered in their program or when participating in in-service training. For teachers to develop GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 116 technological pedagogical knowledge and efficacy, teacher education programs must address this skill-set, as the CCSS and NGSS require students to construct new knowledge through interactions with technology. A study by Polly, Mims, Shepherd, and Inan (2009) showed the potential of altering teacher technological content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge when pre-service teachers were immersed in technology-rich field experiences. Those who were matched with teachers or schools that embraced technology in their curriculum demonstrated a positive result in their own abilities and use of technology in their teaching (Polly et al., 2009). Teachers cannot be expected to create student-centered classrooms when they have not mastered the new technologies and their purpose in the learning context. Chai et al. (2010) have stated that seamless integration of technology cannot occur if teachers are unable to make connections between the content and the pedagogy. Teacher preparation before and after entering the classroom must consider how technology can be appropriately integrated into the content and teaching practice. Teacher education programs must reference the TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) as a basis for developing a well-rounded teacher who can truly transform the learning environment through effective integration of instructional technology. Teacher preparation programs would further benefit from providing opportunities for pre-service and in- service teacher collaboration for the design of technology-infused lessons that promote student learning. Education researchers and policymakers must follow student progress from middle school to high school to articulate a valid argument for technology integration. By showing concrete data on the perceived impact of technology on student learning, teachers and schools would be convinced of the possibilities. For their part, researchers must consider the GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 117 demographics and resources of these schools to create a valid argument for technology, as well as consider the limitations of funding and how other schools have overcome these barriers. Additional studies that can deepen the understanding of the potential of technology on teaching and learning in K–12 schools include:  A study that follows the development of teacher pedagogy as teachers begin integrating technology into their instruction.  A study that compares new teachers to veteran teachers as it pertains to their use of technology and the perceived impact on their teaching and student learning  Further research on the role of the TPACK model in developing district or school PD.  A study that identifies instructional strategies that infuse technology and have been effective in boosting student academic outcomes.  Further research following the journey of a new teacher who works in a technology-rich school environment to identify the support systems necessary to developing teacher pedagogy and efficacy.  A study on the role of the district in developing the technology plan and PD for all teachers, which in turn can build teacher capacity.  A study that compares two technology-rich campuses from different demographics.  Further research on who should use the TPACK framework: district site technology PD developers or classroom teachers.  A study that looks at the following factors and their perceived impact on technology integration by K–12 teachers: socio-economics, teacher evaluations, pressure for accountability from assessments, and opportunities for experimenting with technology.  A district or school administered study to survey their teachers use and perceptions of GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 118 technology-based instruction to see if teacher beliefs and efficacy varies across groups of teachers (novice vs. experienced, traditionally credentialed teacher vs. nontraditionally credentialed teachers, teachers from grad school A vs those from grad school B, etc.). These suggested studies should include multiple perspectives with varied sample sizes to produce findings that can be generalized. Some may acquire greater meaning if conducted as a case study but replicated to compare findings. Criteria for selecting the population and school should correspond to the study’s goal. Researchers must consider a sample that is representative of the school site to produce a whole view of what is occurring in the school. Taking these recommendations into account will reduce biases and can produce evidence that demonstrates the potential impact of technology in education. Though there is a desire to move toward more technology-rich campuses and curricula, policymakers and educational researchers need to consider the whole purpose of technology in the classroom. Because teachers are in the early stages of computer-based technology integration, there is much room for growth and exploration; but teachers, as well as students, need the space to experiment. If the goal is to create a technology-immersed school environment in which students are using the tools to create, then teachers need to do the same. Principals, teachers, and teacher-leaders must be immersed in an educational context that supports and encourages experimentation that will lead to the transformation of their students’ learning experiences. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 119 References Adams, J. E., Jr. (2010). Ambitious learning goals require a new approach to educational resources. In J. E. Adams, Jr. (Ed.), Smart money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious learning goals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Allen, M. (2003). Eight questions on teacher preparation: What does the research say? A summary of the findings. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States (ECS). Retrieved from <http://www.ecs.org/html/educationIssues/teachingquality /tpreport/home/summary.pdf> Anderson, R. (1996). The United States context of computers in education. In T. Plomp, R. E. Anderson, & G. Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides (Eds.), Cross national policies and practices on computers in education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Anderson, R. E., & Dexter, S. (2005). School technology leadership: An empirical investigation of prevalence and effect. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 49–82. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Bagley, W. C. (n. d.). The case for essentialism in education. In F. W. Parkay, G. J. Hass, & E. J. Anctil, Curriculum leadership: Readings for developing quality educational programs (9th ed.) (2009). London, UK: Pearson Publishing. Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on technology in K–12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the National Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 489– 507. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 120 Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414. Beach, R., & Baker, F.W. (2011). Why core standards must embrace media literacy. Education Week, 36(30): 1–3. Beers, S. (2012). 21st century skills: Preparing students for their future. STEM Journal. Retrieved from www.mheonline.com Behjat, F., Yamini, M., & Bagheri, M. S. (2012). Blended learning: A ubiquitous learning environment for reading comprehension. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 97–106. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bonnell, T. (2014). An essential question for developing student-centered classrooms. Education Week Teacher online article. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/tm/ articles/2014/02/04/fpbonnell.html?tkn=QLVDrOYuNLYNJRsni3RVfy4spNm748Aya Zk&intc=es. Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). "Clickers" and metacognition: A quasi experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers & Education, 65, 56–63. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 121 Brown, J. (2012). The current status of STEM education research. Journal of STEM Education, 13(5), 1–7. California Common Core. (2015). Fresno County Office of Education. Retrieved from http:// commoncore.fcoe.org/subject/technology. California Department of Education (CDE). (2013). A parent’s guide to the SARC. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/sa/parentguide.asp. California Department of Education (CDE). (2013). Academic performance index report: information guide. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/. California Department of Education (CDE). (2014). Standardized testing and reporting (STAR). Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/ California Department of Education (CDE). (2015). Smarter balance assessment system. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/index.asp California STEM Learning Network. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.cslnet.org/ California Technology Assistance Project. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site /ctapcommoncore/ Caperton, G., Bushaw, W. J., & Washington, S. J. (2010). Teachers are the center of education: Writing, learning and leading in the digital age. Collaboration: College Board, the National Writing Project and Phi Delta Kappa International. Retrieved from http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/2010-cb-advocacy-teachers-are- center.pdf. Catching on at last: New technology is poised to disrupt America’s schools, and then the world’s. (2013). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/ GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 122 briefing/21580136-new-technology-poised-disrupt-americas-schools-and-then-worlds- catching-last. Cavanaugh, C., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2011). An evaluation of the conditions, processes, and consequences of laptop computing in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45(3), 359–378. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. -C. (2010). Facilitating pre-service teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63–73. Chai, C. -S., Koh, J. H.-L., & Tsai, C. -C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31–51. Childress, S. (2015). Redesigning schools for today’s students and beyond. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/n/2015-01-21-redesigning-schools-for-today-s-students-and- beyond Christova, A., & Mihai, A. (2011). Teaching European studies: A blended learning approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 6(4), 18–22. Collins, J. (2005). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 1-10. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2005/07/level-5-leadership-the- triumph-of-humility-and-fierce-resolve Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). English language arts standards: Writing. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/WHST/11-12/ Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from http://www.ccss.org Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2008). Disruptive technologies, pedagogical GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 123 innovation: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511–524. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Costello, R. W. (1997). The leadership role in making the technology connection. THE Journal, 25(4), 58–62. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Davies, P. M. (2010). On school educational technology leadership. Management in Education, 24(2), 55–61. doi:10.1177/0892020610363089 Davies, R. S. (2011). A framework for evaluating educational technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45–52. Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2010). Social cognitive theory. Education.com. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/ Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11- 02elmore.html Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47– 61. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. Retrieved from www.iste.org/jrte. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 124 Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435. Facer, K. (2012). Taking the 21st century seriously: Young people, education, and socio- technical futures. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 97–113. Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys (5th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Foulger, T. S., & Jimenez-Silva, M. (2007). Enhancing the writing development of English language learners: Teacher perceptions of common technology in project-based learning. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(2), 109–124. Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed (20th anniversary edition). New York, NY: Continuum. Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational leadership, 59(8), 16–20. Retrieved from http://pil.numplus.com/SchoolLeadership/04-fullan/Articles/2002/05_02.pdf Future Ready Schools. (n.d). Retrieved from http://futurereadyschools.org/domain/14 Gall, M. P., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research-An introduction (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in schools. Computers & Education, 49(4), 943–956. Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press. Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391. Guo, R. X., Dobson, T., & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital natives, digital immigrants: An analysis GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 125 of age and ICT competency in teacher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 235–254 Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology’s Achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 231–253. Hall, T. (2012). Digital renaissance: The creative potential of narrative technology in education. Creative Education, 3(1), 96–100. Hamdan, N., McKnight, P., McKnight, K., & Arfstrom, K. (2013). A review of flipped learning. Flipped Learning Network. Retrieved from http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/ wpcontent/uploads/ExecSummaryFlippedLearnig.pdf Hamzah, M. I., Nordin, N., Jusoff, K., Karim, R. A., & Yusof, Y. (2010). A quantitative analysis of Malaysian secondary school technology leadership. Management Science and Engineering, 4(2),124–130. Hastie, M. (2007). Instructional design for best practice in the synchronous cyber classroom. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 281–294. Hatten, S. (2014). Individualized technology goals (ITGs) for teachers: A fable of the staff development with no clothes. Edutopia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/ individualized-technology-goals-for-teachers-stephanie-hatten. Haughey, M. (2006). The impact of computers on the work of the principal: Changing discourses on talk, leadership and professionalism. School Leadership and Management, 26(1), 23– 36. 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. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 126 knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252. Ho, J. M., & Ng, D. (2012). Factors which impact the distribution of leadership for an ICT reform: Expertise vis-à-vis formal role? School Leadership & Management, 32(4), 321– 339. Hodas, S. (1993). Technology refusal and the organizational culture of schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1(10), 1-23. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n10.html. Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343. Huff, D. (2007). Technological illiteracy [Blog]. HuffEnglish.com. Retrieved from http://www.huffenglish.com/?p=412. Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23. Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K–12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. ISTE NETS Standards. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards Johnson, B. (2013). Great teachers don’t teach [Online]. Edutopia. Retrieved from www.edutopia.org/. Karno, D. & Glassman, M. (2013). Science as web of trails: Redesigning science education with the tools of the present to meet the needs of the future. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-7. doi: 10.1007/s10956-013-9439-7 Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering meaningful student learning through GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 127 constructivist pedagogy and technology integration. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 7(4), 1–10. Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G. & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop intiative: Impact on instructional technology integration and student learning. Educational Information Technology, 17, 137-146. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Larson, L. C., & Miller, T .N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121–123. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614. Leer, R. & Ivanov,S. (2013). Rethinking the future of learning: The possibilities and limitation of technology education in the 21st century. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 5(4), 14–20. Lei, J., & Morrow, B. (2010). Teachers’ adoption of technology innovation into pedagogical practices. Education and Information Technologies, 15(3), 143–153. Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. (2013). Bridging the gap: Technology trends and use of technology in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 59– 68. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 128 Mama, M., & Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices concerning classroom use of ICT. Computers & Education, 68, 380–387. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. McGrail. E. (2006). “It’s a double-edged sword, this technology business”: Secondary English teacher’s perspectives on a school wide laptop technology initiative. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1055–1079. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Milanowski, A. T., Kimball, S., & Odden, A. (2005). Teacher accountability measures and links to learning. Contributed to the 2005 American Educational Finance and Association yearbook: Measuring school performance and efficiency: Implications for practice and research. L. Stiefel, A.E. Schwartz, R. Rubenstein, and J. Zabel (Eds.), 137-159. Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. International Society for Technology in Education, 40–42. Mouza, C. (2011). Promoting urban teachers' understanding of technology, content, and pedagogy in the context of case development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(1), 1–29. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http: //search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/ docview/888563410?accountid=14749 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 & Education, 51, 1523–1537. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 129 Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42, 111–131. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu. Murray, O. T., & Olcese, N.R. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or not? TechTrends, 55(6), 42–48. Musawi, A. S. A. (2011). Redefining technology role in education. Creative Education, 2(2), 130–135. National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Next Generation Science Standards. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org /next-generation-science-standards Partnership for 21 st Century Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/. Paily, M. U. (2013). Creating constructivist learning environment: Role of “web 2.0” technology. International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 9(1), 39–50. Pajares, F. (1996). Self–efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–578. Palak, D., & Walls, R. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417–441. Pearson, D. P., Ferdig, R. E. Blomeyer Jr. R. L., & Moran, J. (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Peters, V. L., & Slotta, J. D. (2010). Scaffolding knowledge communities in the classroom: New GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 130 opportunities in the Web 2.0 era. In M.J. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future: International perspectives from the learning sciences. 205-232. Secaucus, NJ: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-88279-6_8 Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2009). Evidence of impact: Transforming teacher education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1–8. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices. Computers & Education, 58(1), 449–458. Purcell, K., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). The impact of digital tools on student writing and how writing is taught in schools. Pew Research Center: National Writing Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers-technology-and-writing. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15. Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology. Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(1), 53-64. Rowsell, J., Saudelli, M. G., Scott, R. M., & Bishop, A. (2013). iPads as placed resources: Forging community in online and offline spaces. Language Arts, 90(5), 351–360. Scherer, M. (2011). Transforming education with technology: A conversation with Karen Cator. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 16–21. Schwartz, K. (2014). For cash-strapped schools, smart ways to spend limited tech dollars. Mind Shift. Retrieved from http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2014/02/for-cash-strapped-schools- smart-ways-to-spend-limited-technology-dollars/ GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 131 Scott, C. (2012). An investigation of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) focused high schools. U.S. Journal of STEM Education, 13(5), 30–35. Serving the community through STEM. (2014, January). National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Reports, 25 (5): 1, 4. Retrieved from https://engineering.purdue.edu/EPICSHS/Announcements/national-science-teachers- association-reports-on-the-epics-high-program/NSTAReportsJan14EntireIssueFinal.pdf Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. (2005). Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 285–311. Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and directions for future learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649. Summaka, M. S., Samancioglu, M., & Baglibel, M. (2010) Technology integration and assessment in educational settings. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 1725– 1729. Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to learning. Computers & Education, 65, 12–33. Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link between teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2541–2553. Tyler, R. W. (1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 132 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2014). Future ready schools: Building technology infrastructure for learning. Retrieved from http://tech.ed.gov/futureready/infrastructure/ Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and the Office for Educational Research and Improvement. Wohlwend, K. E. (2010). A is for avatar: Young children in literacy 2.0 worlds and literacy 1.0 schools. Language Arts, 88(2), 144–151. Yang, Y. C., & Wu, W. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 339–352. Zaeri, N. (2013). Blended learning system performance evaluation. International Journal of Computer Applications, 76(4): 33-39. GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 133 Appendix A Interview Protocol Teacher Interview Protocol RQ1: What technology is present at the school and how it is used as a tool of instruction in the classroom? 1. What types of technology are being used in your classroom? 2. Who uses technology in your classroom? For what purpose? 3. What learning outcomes are associated with technology use? 4. Where (in what learning activities) do you integrate technology into daily classroom practice? 5. How do students demonstrate mastery using technology? RQ2: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning? 1. What are your general feelings about the role of technology in education? Probing questions: a. What role does technology play in preparing for their futures? 2. What do you consider to be the affordances and constraints of integrating technology into your classroom? 3. Are the times when you choose not to use technology for instruction? When? Why? 4. What advice would you give to teachers as they begin to integrate technology into their classroom? RQ3: In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where does the leadership come from? 1. How would you describe the technology culture at your school? 2. What has motivated you to successfully integrate technology into your classroom? 3. What challenges have you faced when integrating technology in your classroom? 4. What impact has school leadership had on your use of technology? 5. What kinds of professional experiences have influenced you integration of technology? GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 134 Administrator Interview Protocol RQ1: What technology is present at the school and how it is used as a tool of instruction in the classroom? 1. What types of technology are being used in your classroom? 2. Who uses technology in the classroom? For what purpose? 3. What learning outcomes are associated with technology use? 4. Where (in what learning activities) is technology integrated into daily classroom practice? 5. How do students demonstrate mastery using technology? RQ2: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning? 5. What are your general feelings about the role of technology in education? Probing questions: a. What role does technology play in preparing for their futures? 6. What do you consider to be the affordances and constraints of integrating technology into classrooms? 7. What advice would you give to teachers as they begin to integrate technology into their classroom? RQ3: In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where does the leadership come from? 6. How would you describe the technology culture at your school? 7. What has motivated you to successfully integrate technology at the school? 8. What challenges have you faced when integrating technology at your school? 9. What impact has district leadership had on your school use of technology? 10. What kinds of professional experiences have influenced you integration of technology? GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 135 Appendix B Survey Protocol USC Study: Technology in K-12 Schools 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 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 136 Technology and Instruction 9. 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 10. My professional development prepared me for the use of technology in my classroom. Absolutely For the most part Somewhat Not at all 11. How often do you incorporate technology into your daily lessons? Never Sometimes Most of the time Always 12. The administrative team actively supports the integration of technology into the school’s classrooms. Never Sometimes Most of the time Always 13. I believe that technology positively impacts student creativity. Never Sometimes Most of the time Always 14. I believe that technology integration requires student collaboration. Never Sometimes Most of the time Always GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 137 15. I believe that technology is relevant for both student engagement and student achievement. Absolutely For the most part Somewhat Not at all 16. The school’s investment in technology has proven worth its cost. Absolutely For the most part Somewhat Not at all 17. 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 18. I feel confident when integrating technology into my classroom instruction. Absolutely For the most part Somewhat Not at all 19. I have been integrating technology into my daily lessons for… 0-1 years 2-3 years 4-5 years 5+ years 20. I believe that technology has positively impacted the quality of my instruction. Absolutely For the most part Somewhat Not at all GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 138 Appendix C Observation Protocol Classroom Observation Protocol Teacher _______________________________ Date _______________________ School ________________________________ Grade/Subject: _______________ Observer _______________________________ Time: _______________________ Research Questions 1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the classroom? 2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning? 3. In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where does the leadership come from? Classroom Environment Student Seating Arrangement  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 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 139 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? GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 140 Observation Notes GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 141 Appendix D Document Review Protocol Document Analysis Protocol RQ 1: What technology is present at the school? Data Needs ● What are the technology categories? Hardware (comp, tablets; ancillary-extra tech- LCD, Elmo, Smartboard, etc; web-based curriculum (APEX), software (programs), ● # of hardware available Documents ❏ CDE-DataQuest ❏ WASC ❏ Title 1 inventory ❏ School websites ❏ News articles ❏ School site plan ❏ Common Core Technology Expenditure Plans ❏ School Accountability Report Card (SARC) ❏ Technology Plan ● Frequency of access to and use of technology Documents ❏ Schedule-sign-up sheets for technology use ❏ Computer Lab or cart Sign ups ❏ AP/Tech Director tracking forms ● Policies in place within the schools for technology Documents: ❏ School site plan ❏ Teacher Handbook ❏ WASC ❏ LEA/LCAP (local education agency plan) ● PD’s – instructional strategies Documents: ❏ District-wide PD Pacing plan ❏ School-wide PD Pacing plan ❏ LEA plan/LCAP ❏ Common Core Plans ● Obstacles and challenges the school has overcome Documents: ❏ WASC 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 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 142 ❏ 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 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 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 143 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 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 144 Appendix E Survey Data Survey Data from Endeavor MS Staff Survey Question 24 yrs or younger 24-30 years old 30-40 years old 40+ years old 1. Personal Demographics: Which of the following age group are you? 0 3 5 9 0-2 years 3-5 years 6-10 years 10+ years 2. How long have you been teaching? 1 2 5 9 “I avoid it” to novice Somewhat Proficient Proficient Advance 3. What is your current skill level with technology? 1 2 10 4 Teacher Grade level or Department Chair Instructional Coach or Specialist Administrator or other 4. What is your role at the school? Please check all that apply. 12 4 2 2 Survey Question 5 and 6 Hardware Software Online Programs Teacher Use HP laptops Document camera Printers LCD projector Smart Board 3D printer Lego Mind storm Scanner Sketchpads Windows Office PowerSchool (school data system) Data Director Textbook adoption software Springboard Math Imagine it! (for lesson planning) BrainPOP Google Chrome Google Drive Email Edmodo Google Classroom YouTube EDU Student Use HP desktop computers Laptops for students Chromebooks iPads Alpha smart/Danas (2 Language! Autodesk Inventor Professional Computers are internet based Inventor (3-D) software Renaissance Accelerated Reader Accelerated Math TenMarks iMovie BrainPOP Google Chrome Google Drive TenMarks Khan Academy Email Edmodo Animoto Google Classroom Code.org GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 145 Typing Web Pages YouTube EDU Survey Question 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 8. Technology has impacted teaching in what way? 8 6 1 0 Acceptable use policy Security policy Etiquette policy (i.e. Cyber bullying, etc.) Parent contract/agreemen t for take-home usage 9. Technology Policies that are in place at your school site 13 13 9 6 0-1 years 2-3 years 4-5 years 5+ years 10. Technology and Instruction: I have been integrating technology into my daily lessons for… 6 1 3 5 Not at all/ Never Somewhat/ Sometimes For the most part Absolutely/ Always 11. I believe that technology has positively impacted the quality of my instruction. 0 4 4 7 12. My professional development prepared me to incorporate 21st century learning skills on a daily basis in my classroom. 3 4 4 4 13. My professional development prepared me for the use of technology in my classroom. 2 5 4 4 14. How often do you incorporate technology into your daily lessons? 1 7 3 4 GROWING THE “T” IN STEM 146 15. The administrative team actively supports the integration of technology into the school’s classrooms. 0 0 5 10 16. I believe that technology positively impacts student creativity 0 4 7 4 17. I believe that technology integration requires student collaboration. 0 10 3 2 18. I believe that technology is relevant for both student engagement and student achievement. 0 5 3 7 19. Parent contract/agreement for take-home usage 0 3 5 7 20. I feel confident when integrating technology into my classroom instruction. 2 2 7 4 Note. Survey only includes fifteen responses, as the one participant did not answer the question. Also, not all staff completed the online survey.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Education is constantly evolving, facing new demands from changing standards in a competitive global society. California K‐12 schools are now navigating greater demands for technology integration from the Common Core State Standards and NGSS to develop students’ 21st‐century skills and improve learning outcomes. The focus of this case study was to identify the decisions, actions, and leadership taken by one school to embrace technology as a tool for instruction. Multiple data collection methods were implemented, including a staff survey, participant interviews, observations, and review of documents for triangulation. The study used the TPACK framework as a conceptual model to guide the investigation. The results from this qualitative case study indicated that key factors to creating a school that embraces technology include: collaboration among teachers, administration, and the district

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Transformational technology in K-12 schools: an elementary 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

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

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study: technology, teaching and student learning

PDF

A case study: the role that site leadership plays in preserving the arts in education

PDF

A multi-case study on teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry in 1:1 classrooms

PDF

An evaluation of project based learning implementation in STEM

Asset Metadata

Creator Luna, Anabel (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/13/2015

Defense Date 03/09/2015

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

Tag 21st century skills,class environment,classroom management,collaboration,differentiation,evolving,growing teaching and learning,impact,implementation model,integrating technology,Integration,intervention,leadership role,Motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,PD,PLTW,project‐based,replacement,role of district,role of technology,school culture,STEM,student impact,student learning,teacher and student interactions,teacher capacity,teacher efficacy,teacher facilitator,teaching and learning,technology professional development,technology resources,technology specialist,TPACK,transformative,transforming education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart E. (committee chair), Freking, Frederick W. (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Creator Email anabellu@usc.edu,lunaics@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-545827

Unique identifier UC11298401

Identifier etd-LunaAnabel-3274.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-545827 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LunaAnabel-3274.pdf

Dmrecord 545827

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Luna, Anabel

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