University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

(USC Thesis Other)

Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

1

Integrated Technology: A Case Study Surrounding Assertions and Realities

by

Lester Milford Clowes

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 2014 Lester Milford Clowes

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

2

Acknowledgements

This effort of mine would never have been possible without my wife. When I began this
program we had one girl less than a year old, and in the time since we have added another
beautiful girl, moved across the country, and built a house. She has raised our girls to be kind,
funny and smart, all with little to no help from my end. You have my word, Pennee, that I will do
everything I can to take it from here. You allow me to keep striving for all my crazy goals.
My parents have laid the cornerstones for my life, by being models for an unwavering
work ethic and an unconditional dedication to one’s goals. During our daily check-ins my father
was always there to make sure I was not forgetting about the most important things, such as my
wife and little ones. My mother, a teacher of thirty-three years herself, has always pushed both
the value of an education and me as a person to fulfill my potential.
The staff of USC has been one of the greatest gifts of my adult life. Dr. Gothold, your
gentle, guiding hand has kept me going this past year and half, and has kept me focused on the
task at hand – finishing. Dr. Green, you pushed me harder than any teacher ever before in my
life, and in doing so you helped me to learn what I am capable of as a researcher and writer. Dr.
Roach, you had an ability to anchor the classroom content with real-life examples that brought a
purpose to the lessons that will stick with me forever. To my committee members, thank you so
much for your time and assistance. To everyone else, thank you for your instruction and support.
Rossier, you truly do deserve the title of top US college of education.
To my whole Fusion Family – staff, students, parents – thank you for not giving up on
me these past three years. When I was down, you guys were always there to encourage me and
to keep me moving. Jennifer, you are one of the main reasons I am at Rossier and now earning
my doctorate. I could never thank you enough.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

3

Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 12
Importance of the Study 12
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations 13
Definition of Important Terms 15
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Current State of Technology Integration 18
Current Barriers to Integration 22
First Order Barriers 22
Second Order Barriers 24
Frameworks for the Integration of Technology 28
Constructivism 28
Inquiry-based (or Project-based) Learning 30
Digital Storytelling 32
Blended Learning 34
TPACK 38
Other Methods for Integration 42
The Impact of Technology 46
Critique of Prior Research 51
Chapter Three: Methodology 53
Purpose of the Study 53
Conceptual Model 54
Research Questions 55
Research Design 56
Sample and Population 57
Selection Process 57
Site Selection for Case Study 58
Instrumentation 61
Staff Surveys 61
Document Analysis 62
Staff Interviews 62
Observations 63
Data Collection 63
Data Analysis 64
Method for Data Analysis 64
Validity and Reliability 65
Summary 65
Chapter Four: Presentation of Findings 66
Overview of the Case Study 66
Purpose of Study 66
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

4

Methodology and Participants 66
Findings by Research Question 67
Question 1A: What technology is present? 67
Hardware 67
Software 68
Question 1B: How is technology used… classroom? 70
Echo 70
Assessment 70
Differentiation 72
Question 2: What is the perceived impact… learning? 73
General Perceptions 74
Engagement and Motivation 75
Collaboration 81
Technology Streamlines… 83
Question 3: In what ways does school climate…? 84
Logistics 84
Culture – General 86
Culture – Technology Is Not a Learner Outcome 87
Empowering all stakeholders as leaders 91
A Supportive District Office 94
Discussion of Conceptual Framework and Themes from Data 95
Discussion of Conceptual Framework 95
TPACK 95
Themes 97
Technology is part of the learning process… 97
Meaningful usage is high-level usage 99
Technology… It’s not all good 102
Chapter Five: Discussion 107
Analysis of Findings 107
Implications for Practice 109
Acquisition 109
PBL and Tech Integration 110
TPACK and SAMR 111
Technology and the Four Walls of the Classroom 111
Recommendations for Future Research 112
In Conclusion 113
References 114
Appendices 120
A: Teacher Interview Protocol 120
B: Administrator Interview Protocol 121
C: Classroom Observation Protocol 122
D: Survey Instrument 125
E: Document Review Protocol 128

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

5

List of Tables
Table 1: TPACK Model 39
Table 2: TPACK Model 55
Table 3: RHS Performance According to State Indices 59
Table 4: RHS – Meeting Standards for Thematic Study 60
Table 5: Q5 (Survey Instrument) 68
Table 6: Q6 (Survey Instrument) 69
Table 7: Q10 (Survey Instrument) 74
Table 8: Q19 (Survey Instrument) 75
Table 9: Q15 (Survey Instrument) 76
Table 10: Q16 (Survey Instrument) 77
Table 11: Q17 (Survey Instrument) 78
Table 12: Q16 (Survey Instrument) 81

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

6

Abstract
This qualitative study examined how technology has been integrated into a high-
achieving public high school. Although access to technology has significantly increased in K-12
schools in the last decade and half, most research indicates the actual usage in most classrooms
to be of a low-level (i.e. administrative, skill-drill, etc.) variety. The environment created by
typically teacher-centered methods is made even more potentially detrimental to student
engagement and learning by the fact most students are immersed in a rich digital world outside
of their schools. The study aimed to explore how one school identified forms of and then
integrated technologies into its classrooms, and the study then gathered information on its
perceived impact on student learning, teacher instruction, and the overall school climate. A
survey of school staff, document analysis, interviews with administrators and teachers, and
classroom and campus observations were triangulated in order to determine potential impacts
from the school’s technology adoption efforts. The study determined this one school’s efforts at
technology integration were made successful by its ability to keep technology a means rather
than a purpose, its ability to engage and empower all stakeholders, and its strict adherence to the
problem-based learning model.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

7

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the
teacher is the most important.” - Bill Gates
Although some researchers and educators might disagree with Mr. Gates and state that
technology has indeed become a way of life rather than a mere tool, the reality is undeniable that
teachers will always prove the most valuable component of any classroom. Yet, the continuing
decision by many educators across the country to not use technology as a medium for engaging
students nor as a tool for collaboration is contributing to an ever-growing divide between how
students learn and process information outside of school and how they are being asked to operate
within the classroom.
Over the last thirty years, the ushering in of the digital age has seen unprecedented
changes come to society. Technological advances have seen the erasing of geographic borders,
as individuals can easily communicate with one another across thousands of miles by simply
accessing web-based technologies through their computers. Knowledge has transitioned from a
commodity contained within textbooks and reference books distilled through a teacher, to now
seeing students of all ages having the ability to virtually access any trivial bit of knowledge in a
matter of seconds through a Google search.
Whereas, the field of education now finds itself lagging behind the rest of the world in
terms of effective adoption of technologies in the classroom. This deficit first began with
regards to student access to hardware and software, and this carried over into the early 2000s.
With large-scale acquisition policies across the country removing this burden, researchers then
turned their sights to the practices occurring with classroom technologies and even more grave
concerns were founded. Studies repeatedly discovered there was a significant divide between
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

8

how ICT was being used by students outside of the school and with its usages within the
classroom. In his research, Erstad (2011) has found that adolescents spend the greatest amounts
of their time in school and within the digital world, and the great disconnect between these two is
leading this generation to disengage from their education. Additionally, the current model of
education and its dominant instructional approaches are based on demarcated structures for time
and space. In contrast, this generation of digital natives has seen a near absolute dissolution of
these paradigms – time and space – that had governed the behaviors and norms of all previous
generations of mankind (Erstad, 2011). Students have cited the ability to access instructional
content and assignments at the time of their choosing as a significant factor for their levels of
learning engagement and motivation (Erstad, 2011). Yet, many schools, especially K-12
institutions, are still requiring students to use traditional textbooks as their primary form of
accessing content, still using traditional pen and paper as the primary method of content creation,
and at best using technology for simple skill drills or as a substitution for a traditional type of
assignment or lesson. They are also still requiring children to attend class at traditional times
while in traditional seating arrangements and following a traditional teacher-centered
instructional model. All of this despite an ever-growing body of research suggesting a growing
disengagement on the part of its intended learners, the students.
Students of all ages yearn for meaningful use of technology in their classrooms. One
study was completed on approximately 500 K-7 students and found an overwhelming belief that
technology was considered a necessity for learning, not a luxury (Geer & Sweeney, 2012). The
students stated that technology made learning more fun and more accessible for them, as it made
content easier to access and kept them engaged (Geer & Sweeney, 2012). A majority of them
even expressed the desire to see a greater prevalence of learning games in the classroom and less
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

9

direct instruction, as they felt the games offered a greater capacity for differentiated learning
(Geer & Sweeney, 2012). In fact, during the study the researcher asked the students to create the
ideal learning environment and more than double the number of students selected computers as a
component rather than textbooks (Geer & Sweeney, 2012). Other studies are finding similar
themes, such as the contemporary reality that more of today’s students are constructing meaning
from screens – especially those away from the classroom – than from the traditional printed word
still dominating their educational settings (Wohlwend, 2010). Students find the printed word
outdated as they believe information and content are dynamic rather than static, and they want
the most up-to-date information (Conole, de Laat, Dillon & Darby, 2008). This belief is
connected to the realities of the world of Web 2.0, where all users have the power of content
creation and where social networks offer real user interactions.
Stakeholders at all levels are indeed facing a significant challenge when it comes to
integrating technology and its many related skills into the classrooms. Schools and their leaders
are under more pressure than ever before to perform well on standardized tests. Although states
have begun acquiring waivers to seek refuge from NCLB’s accountability measures through a
waiver process, in doing so they are accepting all new sets of standards that come with their own
testing systems and new national objectives. In this climate of standardization and testing, where
do schools find the time or resources to incorporate various technologies and the literacy skills
associated with them? Using ICT as a medium for learning involves technoliteracy skills that
many current educators either lack or would at the least require a significant amount of training
to utilize (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Palak & Walls,
2009; Prestridge, 2012).
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

10

Conversely, there are a number of schools across the country that are succeeding in this
endeavor – integrating ICT while maintaining exemplary levels of academic achievement.
However, these schools have achieved this task without any sort of playbook or blueprint, as is
so often present within other educational reforms. How have these schools accomplished this
integration of technology? Many researchers will point to the innovative usage of best practices
from other areas of educational research, such as problem-based learning as a primary source for
influence. Still, other researchers will cite leadership and climate as critical factors for the
success of these outlying schools, while others might look to digital culture itself and educational
gaming as a burgeoning arena for student success and with the explosive growth of virtual
learning communities as evidence.
One thing is for certain, though. The divide is growing annually between the teacher-
centered practices remaining in many classrooms and the digital practices of students outside of
classrooms. There is no magic bullet in terms of hardware or software that is going to
miraculously engage students in a meaningful way. Rather, the potential for progress lies within
educators and policymakers. Research has found promise in the act of acknowledging the
critical role that technology plays in the way adolescents access information, learn new content,
and collaborate with one another.
Statement of the Problem
“Knowledge is knowing what you don’t know.” - Socrates
The world has changed rapidly in the last two decades, especially in the ways that people
access information, learn new skills, and then put these skills to use in the workforce. In fact,
noted tech strategist Michell Zappa asserts that a majority of today’s primary and secondary
students will have careers in jobs that do not currently exist. The crisis is not limited to the K-12
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

11

arena, as many researchers lament the fact that most college degree programs are obsolete, in
that they prepare their graduates with job skills that are no longer needed (Fischer, 2013).
This was the aim of the 21
st
century learners movement, to focus on the abilities – most
of them digital-based – that tomorrow’s workforce would need to be successful, and then to have
these skills integrated into today’s educational world. The reality is this next generation of
workers will be required to work with diverse forms of digital media, to create diverse forms of
content at an unprecedented rate, and to learn new skills at a rate and fluency unseen by any
previous generation of humanity (Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
Still, research has continuously shown that most classrooms are seeing technology used
in low-level forms, such as simple skill drills or daily quizzes (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010). Yet, the shocking reality behind many of these studies is the fact many of these teachers
believe their tech integration strategies to be meaningful and high-level (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010; Palak & Walls, 2009). Further contributing to these complexities surrounding
ICT integration is the fact there exists no formal theory or system for the adoption of classroom
technologies. Educators and researchers have been integrating previous theories for other areas
of learning in order to create best practices, but these still do not offer blueprints for classroom
teachers to follow when attempting to bring ICT into their rooms. It is these areas of uncertainty
and potential confusion that are contributing to these inconsistencies between teacher’s beliefs
and intentions and their actual practices.
Students need the skills and knowledge to succeed as global citizens in this ever-
changing landscape that the Age of Information has ushered into existence. While some schools
have proven exemplary in embracing new technologies, there remains the need to understand the
impact of technology on teaching and learning.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

12

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to identify the practices that have promoted the use of
technology to transform teaching and learning in a high-performing secondary school. The best
format for achieving this purpose was determined to be a qualitative case study, due to its ability
to offer a deep and rich narrative on not just the best practices of this exemplary program, but
also on the origination and expectations behind these plans, on their execution, and then on the
perceived impacts of new technologies on both the instructional practices of the school’s
teachers and on its overall climate and culture. The research questions that drove the study are as
follows.
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
3. In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where
does the leadership come from?
Importance of the Study
This study seeks to discover how one high-performing school was able to integrate
technology without sacrificing its focus on the academic success of its students. How was it able
to accomplish this feat in an era of resource scarcity? By doing such, this study serves a
significant importance. There is a wealth of research available on the barriers for ICT adoption
and integration, just as there is a wealth of research critiquing types of technology usage in the
classroom. To some extent, there also exists a body of research examining the best practices
surrounding technology usage in the classroom. On the other hand, few studies have sought to
examine how these many factors – both reasons and methods for acquiring and integrating
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

13

technology, how the technology is being used, what are the best practices to be derived from real
usage – might come together and impact the instructional practices of a school as well as its
overall climate/culture.
Although this is a qualitative case study concerned with a single high school site and its
findings cannot be generalized, it is being completed as one part of a thematic dissertation group
of eleven case studies. Since any findings for a case study are limited to that specific case, one
will be able to collectively examine the group’s overall efforts and potentially discover themes
concerning the best practices of these model programs. This study – and its partners – will also
contribute to the overall body of educational research in this area by identifying efforts that have
displayed promise and that might be worthy of further research.
Lastly, this study is a celebration of the positive during a time in which education is
receiving a great deal of negative attention. The purpose of this case study is to identify the
positive efforts of those educators at a single school site who have sought to increase the
engagement of its students, and to better prepare them for a future full of uncertainty due to the
evolving influences and development of various technologies. In doing this, the researcher
hopes to celebrate the accomplishments of this community of stakeholders.
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
In conducting the study, the researcher assumed the following.
§ The answers gathered and the observations made by the researcher were authentic and
indicative of the day-to-day business of the school site.
§ The participants in the study would be forthright with honest answers.
§ The participants in the study would be able to provide sufficient knowledge concerning
the school’s efforts in adopting and integrating ICT.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

14

§ There is a positive relationship between best practices concerning ICT integration and
student engagement and learning.
§ Leadership and school climate are critical factors for effective classroom instruction.
§ The school site selected for the study was accurately identified as a high-performing
school.
The following are acknowledged limitations of the study.
§ The data gathered during the study is not generalizable.
§ The data gathered was limited to the observations and efforts of a single researcher.
§ The period of time in which the fieldwork occurred was brief and but a snapshot in time.
§ The willingness of site participants to participate in the study.
§ Collection and analysis of the data was subject to the skill level, knowledge base, and
bias of the researcher.
The following were delimitations utilized by the researcher in conducting the study.
§ A single school site was selected by purposeful criteria developed by the overall
dissertation team of eleven researchers and one experienced research mentor.
§ The researcher selected six days for the fieldwork to be conducted at the school site, and
the researcher spent this period conducting as many interviews, classroom observations,
and as many periods of reflection and analysis as possible.
§ The research instruments were developed by the dissertation team to limit the focus of
research to the acquisition of technology, to the efforts made site leadership in
integrating this technology, to the observable instructional strategies being utilized by
staff to incorporate ICT, and to the perceived impacts of technology on teaching,
learning, and the overall school climate.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

15

Definition of Important Terms
21
st
Century Skills, or 21
st
Century Learner Framework – A framework for the skills necessary
for today’s learners to succeed in this digital era. There is a heavy focus on the “4 C’s,” which
are critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity (“Framework,” n.d.).
Academic Performance Index (API) – Although its formula has changed in the years since its
inception in 1999, the API is California’s method for determining the academic performance as
well as academic growth of its public schools. Scores are determined using a variety of metrics,
and scores are given for the school as a whole and for all subgroups for the school’s population
(“API,” n.d.).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – AYP is the measure by which the varying levels of public
education are held accountable under No Child Left Behind. States determine the academic
growth expectations for its students, and year over year results are examined to whether a school,
district, etc. is achieving AYP (“Adequate Yearly Progress,” 2011).
Climate, or Culture – The environment found within a school and its community, including – but
not limited to – the mixture of relationships within and between the school’s various
stakeholders. The ideal climate of a school is one in which all members feel accepted and safe
(“Promoting Positive…”, n.d.).
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants – Terms used to illustrate the differences - communication
methods, language, learning styles, etc. – between those students born after the digital revolution
(Digital Natives) and those born before (Digital Immigrants). While there is no specific year
given as the point of demarcation between the two, for ease of conversation most researchers
point to the time period around 1995 (Cunningham, 2014).
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

16

Distinction Designations – Under Texas education code, distinction designations are awarded to
schools that perform in the top 25% of all state schools in annual student improvement according
to state testing scores. Awards are given for overall student population performance, for
performance in closing achievement gaps for subgroups, and for specific academic subject areas
(“Texas Education Code,” 2013).
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) – The study of ways in which technology is
used to both handle the transmission of information and how it impacts communication.
Inquiry-based Learning (IBL), and/or Problem-based Learning (PBL) – A pedagogical approach
that sees a focus on learning through the process of investigation. Within this framework,
students pursue solutions to nontrivial problems by asking and refining questions, debating ideas,
making predictions, designing plans and/or experiments, collecting and analyzing data, drawing
conclusions, communicating their ideas and findings to others, asking new questions, and
creating artifacts (Blumenfeld, 1991).
Digital Storytelling (DST) – In its most basic sense, DST is the method in which modern media
allows users to share aspects of their life story. However, DST has been utilized in recent
decades by educators as a new platform for project-based learning, with a focus on peer
collaboration and public speaking or presentation.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) – Legislation passed in 2001 that reauthorized the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, a prior bill critical for supporting Title I programs which provide
aid for disadvantaged students. NCLB supported standards-based reform efforts by putting into
place a level of federal mandates for state, district, and school site accountability measures
surrounding student proficiency in core subject areas (“No Child Left Behind,” n.d.).
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

17

State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) – In 2012 the STAAR system of
evaluations replaced Texas’s previous system for standardized testing. STAAR has core subject
examinations for all public students beginning in the 3
rd
grade and continuing into high school,
where students are responsible for passing end-of-course exams in five key content areas in order
to be eligible for high school graduation (“STAAR Resources,” 2014).
Technological, Content, and Pedagogical Knowledge (TPACK) – A framework for technology
integration that states ideal teaching and learning occurs as a result of the relationship between
extensive content knowledge, the right pedagogical approaches, and sound technological
knowledge and practices (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Organization of the Study
Following this first chapter will be “Chapter 2: Literature Review,” where the researcher
will conduct a purposeful sampling of existing literature on ICT integration in education. A
focus will be made during this literature review to discuss historical and existing barriers to
technology adoption, to outline current best practices for the incorporation of ICT into classroom
instruction, and to then examine what prior research has found to be the positive impacts of other
schools’ efforts upon integrating technology into the classroom. “Chapter 3: Methodology” will
then investigate the researcher’s reasoning for conducting a qualitative case study in an effort to
answer the research questions being put forth, and will also take a look at how the researcher
intended to gather the information necessary to answer the research questions. “Chapter 4:
Findings” will discuss the data gathered during the research study. Lastly, “Chapter 5:
Conclusion” will contain a discussion of the overall study, will offer an analysis of its findings,
and will finish with recommendations for further research.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

18

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter two provides the context for the research questions driving this study. Previous
studies have sought to understand the reasons for and the consequences of bringing technology
into the classroom. What has been the impact on student achievement? What has been the
perceived impact on student motivation and/or engagement? In schools that have adopted
technology, what has been the perceived impact on staff culture and the overall school climate?
This literature review will examine previous works that have sought to answer these questions,
as well as questions that arose around these topics. Because this study will be a qualitative case
study, a focus has been made on pulling literature that, too, used qualitative methods – preferably
those with a case study approach.
First, an investigation will be made into the current state of technology integration in
today’s schools. The literature review will then explore what barriers are confronting educators
and policymakers as they continue efforts to bring technology into schools. Next, the literature
review will delve into research surrounding frameworks for bringing technology into schools and
their classrooms, specifically the methods of each and their determined effectiveness. Last, the
review will examine the impact of technology on K-12 education in terms of student engagement
and student achievement. Chapter two will then conclude with a critique of the prior research.
Current State of Technology Integration
The world today is a digital one. In recent decades the idea of a “flat” world has become
a theme for study in many ways for many disciplines – meaning that technology has eradicated
most geographic boundaries, thereby offering a connection to peoples that otherwise would not
have been granted such an option. Indeed, most researchers and economists from various fields
would agree that technology has revolutionized almost every field and industry in the world.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

19

Yet, the one field that has lagged significantly behind other adopters is education (Mama &
Hennessy, 2013). The evidence is discouraging. One recent study surveyed 400 of the top
employers in the United States in order to assess their perception of the readiness levels of young
people entering the workforce. General results of the survey suggests the nation’s high schools
are underserving our children in almost all 21
st
Century Learning Skills, namely in key areas
associated with technology usage such as communication, teamwork and collaboration, and
information technology (The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families,
Partnership for 21st Century Skills & Society for Human Resource Management, 2006).
Despite this lagging, some researchers believe that education is on the tipping point of its
overall state of technology adoption. For example, Kumar (2012) believes the field cannot much
longer resist the combined pressures of the Open Education Movement and the rise of Web 2.0,
and that these influences are pushing the traditional classroom towards adoption whether
individuals are ready to do so or not. Further, Kumar (2012) notes that knowledge is no longer a
commodity for educators, as had been the case for centuries before. According to Kumar (2012),
this is due to the development of programs such as MIT’s Open Courseware, which saw the
prestigious university make access both public and free for the content of hundreds of its courses.
Other universities soon followed, and the Open Education Movement now sees over 250
universities participating in this free knowledge paradigm with over 13,000 of their courses
accessible by anyone with an internet connection (Kumar, 2012).
Kumar (2012) posits that as knowledge transitions from a commodity emphasis is being
placed on the process and the quality of one’s education. The researcher argues now more than
ever before teachers must become skilled facilitators of learning – and technology plays a key
role in this shifting of paradigms (Kumar, 2012). In his research on blended learning, Fleck
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

20

(2012) came to many of the same conclusions as Kumar (2012). Namely, that knowledge is no
longer possessed and then disbursed by the teacher, and that technology must be embraced by
educators as they begin focusing on arming students with the tools necessary to navigate this
now openly accessible world of knowledge.
During her many years of researching educational adoption of technology, Ertmer has
concluded most current classroom-based applications of technology are either administrative or
communication-based rather than student-centered meaningful learning experiences (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). The most frequent ways in which Ertmer et al. (2010) observed
technology as an instructional tool was through low-level usage, such as PowerPoint lectures or
skill drills on a computer. In his studies on constructivism and Web 2.0, Paily (2013) determined
that most of the computer usage he found in the classroom was through computer-assisted
instruction, which is noted as positive for classroom management purposes but potentially
detrimental to a student’s learning experience. Erstad (2011) researched the many different ways
in which students’ digital lives and educational lives intersect, and his study involved
interviewing students in order to gather their perceptions surrounding the use of technology in
the classroom. Many students stated they were frustrated with the use of computers as primarily
a tool for assessment rather than for learning. Through his classroom observations and educator
interviews, Erstad (2011) offers the same conclusion as the student subjects, going so far as to
state this use of technology as damaging to student engagement and learning due to students’
frustrations with having to leave their advanced digital practices at home.
These perceptions of students and adoption policies were the focus of Wohlwend’s
(2010) research on student technoliteracy. The researcher would most likely agree with the
aforementioned assessment of Erstad (2011), in that students are metaphorically going back in
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

21

time when coming to school. As a result, students see a detrimental impact on motivation,
engagement, and achievement. Most schools are still in the Literacy 1.0 world, where the
printed linear text is the primary source of educational content and where instruction is driven
through pen and paper (Wohlwend, 2010). What technology is present is usually in the form of a
benign addition. In early grades, objectives focus on isolated skills such as decoding or word
recognition (Wohlwend, 2010). However, outside of school most students – and the world at
large – exist in a Literacy 2.0 world. Here, through Web 2.0 students have access to the world at
large and are exposed to new knowledge in a nonlinear, dynamic fashion (Wohlwend, 2010).
Indeed, most areas of interaction with other people occur through websites where interaction is
high and content is editable. As a result there is an intense focus on collaboration in Web 2.0,
something not found in classrooms due to Literacy 1.0 paradigms (Wohlwend, 2010).
Additionally, symbolism and gaming are a way of life, as Wohlwend (2010) notes many
individuals can even pretend their way into fluency in the Web 2.0 world. Wohlwend (2010)
contends that many educators and systems today are attempting to take Literacy 2.0 concepts and
force them into Literacy 1.0 frameworks. But the study asserts this cannot work, and in fact can
prove damaging for students in terms of engagement and motivation.
As a potential response to Wohlwend’s (2010) work, Conole, de Laat, Dillon and Darby
(2008) surveyed over 400 college students and interviewed 14 respondents, to gather their
perceptions of the current state of technological innovation and usage in their college classrooms.
Although the study focused on students in higher education, there are many parallels to glean for
K-12 educators. The researchers believe that most institutions are not prepared nor equipped to
integrate technology at a level that most digital natives are accustomed to, rather than there
simply being a misalignment between Literacy 1.0 and Literacy 2.0 as Wohlwend (2010)
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

22

discussed (Conole et al., 2008). As a result, many students have adapted to their school’s lack of
technological support or innovation, and have instead developed a set of habits and tools around
using their own resources to support their education. For example, many students have found
creating and participating in virtual learning environments a key step in their academic success
(Conole et al., 2008; Deng & Tavares, 2013). Web 2.0 offers considerable promise for
addressing the diverse needs of the many types of learners found in America’s schools, and many
of these students will look to the digital world for academic support whether through their
educational institution or not (Conole et al., 2008).
Current Barriers to Integration
In her 1999 study on factors involving technology integration in schools, Ertmer
surmised there are two primary categories impacting adoption effectiveness: first order barriers –
those external to teachers such as resources, policies, school climate, etc. – and second order
barriers – those internal to teachers such as ideology, beliefs, self-efficacy, etc. For this section,
this framework will be used to guide discussion as Ertmer’s two level system is widely accepted
among researchers in the area.
First Order Barriers
What have been classical first order barriers, such as hardware and educational software,
have all but disappeared in terms of being relevant obstacles for technology integration (Ertmer,
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurer & Sendurer, 2012). Large-scale purchases of computers
and tablets, 1:1 laptop initiatives, open source software, and cheap and widespread internet
access have saturated most American schools with technology. But, this permeation of
technology has given rise to other significant forms of first order barriers, such as forced
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

23

integration policies and its effects, and staff culture (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer
et al., 2012; Wetzel & Marshall, 2011).
During their study on TPACK as a professional development tool, Wetzel and Marshall
(2011) inadvertently gathered feedback concerning first and second order barriers for technology
integration. The researchers found that forced integration policies can negatively influence
classroom-level adoption. When a school site had policies in place for technology usage during
instruction, teachers expressed concerns over sacrificing content objectives and/or quality of
pedagogy to meet the standards of the forced integration policies – which they often perceived as
being in place for the sake of justifying the expense of the technology instead of the actual
welfare of the students (Wetzel & Marshall, 2011).
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) performed a case study on 12 award-winning
teachers cited for successful classroom technology usage, for the purpose of gathering their
perceptions on current barriers to the integration of technology. These teachers believed school
culture to be the most significant variable for meaningful integration. Specifically, these
teachers discussed the best school climate for technology integration to be either one that is
student-centered in its instructional beliefs and practices, or one that embraces innovative efforts
at improving instruction or just in general (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Multiple
teachers during the study discussed how veteran teachers or veteran teaching staffs can cripple
the entire school’s adoption efforts by being resistant to the attempted change. Notably, the
teachers in this study were those who believed in the value of technology in the classroom and
did not possess any significant internal, or second order, barriers (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010).

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

24

Second Order Barriers
Many of the early first order barriers have all but disappeared as districts and schools
across the country have made mass purchases of hardware and educational software. The last
couple of years have seen the last of the traditional first order barriers fall, as states have
transitioned to standards based upon Common Core or heavily influenced by the 21
st
Century
Learner Framework (Ertmer et al., 2012). Because of these changes in the field, much
educational research during the last decade has focused on the relationship between factors
internal to teachers – ideology and beliefs, self-efficacy, etc. – and classroom adoption of
technology.
A difficulty researchers have found in determining the level of obstruction second order
barriers might bring to technology integration is the fact many teachers believe they are
performing high-level usages of technology when this is not the case (Ertmer et al., 2012; Mama
& Hennessy, 2013; Palak & Walls, 2009). In a study of 113 teachers in Virginia with both high
access and extensive professional development, Palak and Walls (2009) found that many
teachers had students working in a 1:1 environment with laptops. But because the teachers
maintained teacher-centered beliefs about what comprised “good” teaching, the students were
using the technology primarily for low-level purposes such as skill drills or computer-based
quizzes. Essentially, the teachers were using technology to support preexisting beliefs and
practices. Ironically, almost all of the teachers with low-level technology usage professed in
surveys to practice strong student-centered practices, but they instead reported teacher-centered
beliefs (Palak & Walls, 2009). Palak and Walls (2009) found only when a teacher held strong
student-centered beliefs and – perhaps most importantly – believed that technology was essential
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

25

for good teaching did their classrooms reflect in practice high-level usage of technology with
internet-based research, online collaboration and content creation, etc.
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) would agree with the assertion that a teacher’s
perceived value of technology would considerably impact its integration into classroom
instruction. In fact, their studies have found it to be the most critical of variables. Additionally,
the researchers have found that the perceived value must also be connected to the teacher’s
content area for there to be a foundational acceptance of the technology, so that it can therefore
be meaningfully embraced. Also, Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) found that whether a
teacher held constructivist or traditionalist teaching beliefs significantly impacted their level and
type of technology usage in the classroom. Teachers with constructivist beliefs were far more
likely to adopt technology as an instructional tool, and their type of usage was typically on a
higher level. Teachers with traditionalist beliefs were less likely to adopt technology, and when
they did it was often in place of already established practices such as drills or quizzes (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). In fact, the researchers found in many cases that traditionalist
teaching beliefs were detrimental to technology adoption as early as the concept being
introduced to teachers at the professional development stage (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010).
Tondeur, Hermans, Braak, and Valcke (2008) conducted similar research to Ertmer and
Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) and came to similar conclusions, specifically in the relationship
between constructivist beliefs and high-level technology integration. Their study saw over 500
teachers complete quizzes to ascertain their core beliefs about teaching. The researcher than
surveyed the teachers about their instructional practices. Teachers with traditionalist beliefs
were found to have teacher-centered classrooms where technology was used for skill drills and
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

26

assessments – if at all (Tondeur et al., 20008). However, teachers with constructivist beliefs
were far more likely to have student-centered classrooms where technology was used primarily
for investigation and content creation, and where critical thinking skills were a focus of
instruction (Tondeur et al., 2008). In fact, where Tondeur et al. (2008) would disagree with
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) and with Palak and Walls (2009) is a teacher’s core
constructivist or traditionalist beliefs as the most critical indicator for their level of technology
adoption, rather than in technology’s perceived importance as an instructional tool.
Other researchers have concluded attempting to determine whether a teacher is likely to
adopt instructional technology is not as simple as defining a “most critical” variable. Mama and
Hennessy (2013) completed a case study of twelve veteran teachers who all professed high levels
of information communication technology (ICT) competence. The two researchers ultimately
concluded that the arguments behind technology adoption extend much farther beyond simply
“adopter versus resistor” (Mama & Hennessy, 2013). They instead created a typology to aid
other researchers in capturing this complexity, due to a number of their subjects professing high
value for technology as well as high self-competence, but then still executing teacher-centered
instructional practices with low-level technology usage (Mama & Hennessy, 2013). At the same
time, Mama and Hennessy (2013) also found beginning teachers with low self-efficacy who held
strong beliefs about the transformative nature of technology as an instructional tool and who then
led innovative, student-centered classrooms. In his mixed methods study of approximately 50
teachers from around Australia, Prestridge (2012) came to similar conclusions as Mama and
Hennessy (2013). Namely, the relationship between self-confidence, self-competence, and the
perceived value of technology is far too complex to determine a single variable as the most
significant in predicting whether a teacher will adopt technology for the classroom. Prestridge
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

27

(2012) found teachers with high confidence and high competence that still led teacher-centered
classrooms, just as Mama and Hennessy (2013). Yet, he did determine that the two traits could –
for the most part – still predict type and level of ICT adoption. Prestridge (2012) does believe
there is a potentially significant relationship between all these variables, but because most
current teachers are still in the beginning phase of adopting classroom technology it is too early
to determine just what the formula might be. Once a majority of practicing teachers move
beyond the phase where technology is merely adopted “in addition to” the curriculum, then
Prestridge (2012) professes the most meaningful of research in the area will be able to take place.
Wetzel and Marshall (2011) surmised – during their study on the potential for TPACK to
aid in the professional development of social studies teachers – that too much personal expertise
and/or confidence could actually harm adoption efforts for technology in classroom instruction.
The researchers found the best combination of variables for teacher adoption of ICT was high
comfort with technology with low to mid-level expertise, as these teachers often took the
approach of presenting technology to the classroom and then “figuring” it out with the students –
a key student-centered problem solving strategy that can foster group ownership and
collaboration (Wetzel & Marshall, 2011).
As with first order barriers, the evolution of second order barriers has evolved through
the years as more research has been completed in the area. In their study of twelve award-
winning, technology-using teachers, Ertmer et al. (2012) determined that the most common
attributes considered to be second order barriers – self-efficacy, comfort level, ideology – had
actually become facilitators of technology integration rather than obstacles. Because of such,
these teachers believed that “new” first order barriers – school climate and teacher culture – had
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

28

become the most critical impediments to current efforts at bringing technology into the
classroom in meaningful, student-centered ways (Ertmer et al., 2012).
Frameworks for the Integration of Technology
Much research has been completed on potential frameworks and/or systems for bringing
technology into the classroom. Still, there are no specific, research-based instructional systems
for such. Rather, prior research has focused on existing pedagogies and their ability to blend
technology with student learning. Such systems include constructivism – and within this area
inquiry-based learning and digital storytelling – and blended learning. However, one framework
has been adapted to include technology in the lesson planning process, the TPACK model. Each
of these systems is discussed in this section of the literature review, as well as their potential
impact on the classroom and on student learning.
Constructivism
Attempts to define exactly what constructivism is and what it entails are as diverse as the
many disciplines classified under its umbrella. Yet, most researchers and educators do agree on
a few central principles. Constructivist learning is built around the idea of providing students
with learning opportunities independent in structure, thus allowing them to experiment with
existing knowledge so they can construct their own personal meaning from the material. From
this school of thought, though, come the different ideas about how this system should be
executed or where areas of emphasis should be made.
Common themes include the concepts of student reflection, content creation, and
collaboration. Paily (2013) states there must be a strong emphasis on reflection for the student’s
learning process to have meaning, the student must have a sense of control in the learning
process, and the content assessment must be authentic and a part of the learning process itself.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

29

Keengwe and Onchwari (2011) emphasize the active aspect of constructivism, explaining that its
effectiveness stems from the activities the student(s) is engaged within in a hands-on manner and
how they draw meaning from the construction of their evidence of learning. From this process
the researchers offer that students will develop their own frames for processing real-world
information they will carry with them beyond school.
In terms of the relationship between constructivism and technology, Keengwe and
Onchwari (2011) state their research has found the two to be complementary. The researchers
explain constructivism has, in fact, experienced a resurgence in educational research due to the
growth of technology – that technology allows for a level of active and independent learning
unseen in previous years and decades (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011). In addition, students will
need technological skills in their future studies and professions, and another purpose of
constructivism is to arm students with relevant tools for lifelong success (Keengwe and
Onchwari, 2011). Paily (2013) came to a similar conclusion, specifically in how Web 2.0 has
allowed for unprecedented levels of student activity in the areas of independent investigation,
content creation, knowledge participation, and peer collaboration. To support these assertions,
Paily (2013) points to Web 2.0 tools such as wikis, social networks, file sharing, open source
software, clouds, and blogs and the different educational capacities these instruments can offer
students. Also, Paily (2013) points to the modern technoliteracy skills needed for lifelong
success for today’s students, the same as Keengwe and Onchwari (2011) before.
However, Kenngwe and Onchwari (2011) are careful to point out the context in which
the teacher presents technology to students is key. Their research has found that when
technology is presented as a resource for investigation and creation then students can best
assimilate it into the classroom. Additionally, the researchers explain technology should be
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

30

presented in conjunction with open-ended assignments that offer differentiation for students at
different ability levels, and this is where the complementary relationship between constructivism
and technology is most beneficial in the classroom (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011).
Inquiry-based (or Project-based) learning. Just as with the parent classification of
constructivism, finding an ultimate definition for inquiry-based learning (IBL) is near
impossible, but researchers do agree on some aspects of the theory. First, the unit of study
begins with a problem – sometimes given to the student or other times created by the student.
Next, the student researches the issue and compiles a report or other assessment, and this is then
presented for review. However, what areas of emphasis should be made for the process,
different steps that can or should be included in the process, and how technology can tie into IBL
and the potential impact of this relationship on student achievement, all of these questions are
what have driven research surrounding IBL in recent years.
In his research on how technology and IBL can combine to improve the 21
st
century
learning skills of students, Bell (2010) sought to outline more completely the IBL process for
contemporary classrooms. According to the researcher, the IBL process begins with the problem
statement, students then begin independently investigating the issue and subsequently
formulating potential solutions, they then collaborate with their peers in a review process of their
potential solutions, and then they present their ideas for final review (Bell, 2010). Other key
components of the process as outlined by Bell (2010) include accountability through goal-setting
and a heavy focus on the development of critical thinking skills. There is also an emphasis on
the fact the process should be student-driven and teacher-facilitated. Bell (2010) also expounds
on the virtues of Web 2.0 as a facilitator of this process, due to the modern internet’s capacity for
peer collaboration, active research and content manipulation, and the wealth of information
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

31

available with the metaphorical click of a mouse. To support his assertions Bell (2010) cites an
extensive volume of previous studies that have found significant student gains when IBL had
been introduced to the classroom, including almost all academic disciplines and grade levels as
examples, as well as socioeconomic groups.
Lee, Lin, Varma, and Liu (2010) examined the ways in which IBL could improve middle
school science courses, and in turn found ways in which technology could be combined with IBL
to improve instruction. For their study the researchers had been focused on how consecutive
cohorts performed with the same material, one group with traditional, teacher-centered
instruction and the next with lessons designed around IBL. The researchers unintentionally
found when IBL was combined with technology such as computer simulations and
visualizations, internet-based research, and student content creation, that the IBL/technology
students significantly outperformed the traditionally taught IBL students who were not
supplemented with technological resources (Lee et al., 2010). The researchers cited specific
lessons as exemplary of the potential relationship of IBL and technology, such as one
investigation where students were able to explore electron configuration through computer
models that allowed them to see the actual scientific phenomenon in action, creating accessibility
to the content the students otherwise would not have possessed (Lee et al., 2010). The
researchers outlined how the IBL and technology relationship was most ideal for students when
the teacher had given a driving question(s) for the lesson, the students were able to explore real
world material through experimental methods and technological media, and the students were
then able to independently perform data analysis and construct explanations and present through
technological media (Lee et al., 2010).
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

32

Foulger and Jimenez-Silva (2007) came to similar conclusions as Lee et al. (2010), but
during research into a different academic discipline. Foulger and Jimenez-Silva (2007)
examined the potential advantages of incorporating technology and IBL into classrooms
supporting ELL students with the development of their writing skills. The multi-case study
followed 14 different ELL teachers for an entire school year, and data gathered suggested the
combination of technology- and IBL-formatted lessons led to higher levels of student
engagement and motivation, greater risk-taking during the learning process, and classrooms took
on more of a learning community culture due to increased student collaboration (Foulger &
Jimenez-Silva, 2007). The researchers and teachers both stated beliefs that these improvements
occurred due to technology’s ability to create simulated experiences, offer content visualizations,
and connect students with models and role models from around the world, in addition to IBL’s
existing focus on problem-solving and authentic assessment (Foulger & Jimenez-Silva, 2007).
Digital storytelling (DST). Although it is often viewed as an independent learning
framework, DST shares many of the core philosophies of constructivism: research questions or
problem posing drives student learning, independent research and content creation, and peer
collaboration. Yang and Wu (2012) outline the process for DST as follows:
1. The teacher poses a question to the students. From here the teacher will primarily
serve as facilitator.
2. Students then independently research and begin forming what will be their story.
3. Students collaborate in a peer review process, as they critique each other’s work and
provide feedback.
4. The students use technology to create and present their work.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

33

5. The students distribute their stories – again through technological means – after it has
been reviewed and “accepted.”
Alternatively, in their attempt to define DST the researchers Xu, Park, and Baek (2011) do not
offer steps for educators to follow so much as they present guiding principles around which to
construct a process. The researchers state any DST program must be based upon the spirit of
“learning by doing,” as well as the key elements of flexibility, universality, interactivity, and
community (Xu et al., 2011). In addition, the researchers have found the Web 2.0 tools of social
networks, blogs, online games and virtual reality worlds to be critical components for engaging
students in the DST process (Xu et al., 2011).
In order to test their theories on DST and its potential for student achievement, Yang and
Wu (2012) designed a study at a Taiwanese school in an English writing course. Half of the
students learned in a traditional, teacher-centered setting while the other group of students
participated in a DST program. The researchers performed pre- and post-tests on students to
assess potential academic gains, as well as gathered qualitative feedback from students on their
overall learning experience (Yang & Wu, 2012). The DST students achieved significant gains
over their traditionally taught peers in the areas of reading, writing, listening, and overall
performance. Additionally, the DST students scored significantly higher in learner motivation
indexes than their peers. Students that participated in the DST courses cited a number of the
system’s practices as valuable to their learning experience, including self-reflection, self-
organization, peer review and evaluation, and critical thinking (Yang & Wu, 2012).
Xu et al. (2011) sought to examine the effects of Web 2.0 and DST even further, as they
designed a study following two groups of DST students – one cohort working in more traditional
technology platforms such as Windows Movie Maker, and the other cohort working in the virtual
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

34

reality of Second Life (Xu et al., 2011). In theory, the virtual world would allow its students
greater control over content creation, as well as the ability to interact with peers through avatars
rather than a conventional face-to-face setting. The Second Life students did cite these
capacities as critical for the peer review and evaluation processes, as well as their willingness to
take greater risks with content creation (Xu et al., 2011). Additionally, the Second Life cohort
cited the ability to interact with one another out of school and during nontraditional hours as
essential for getting their work completed (Xu et al., 2011). Xu et al. (2011) found through their
pre- and post-test analysis that the Second Life students outperformed their Windows Movie
Maker cohort in academic gains in overall writing ability, as well as outscoring them in learner
motivation and self-efficacy indices.
Blended Learning
The area of blended learning has seen an explosion in growth and popularity in recent
years due to capabilities afforded by technology, specifically Web 2.0 tools. Yet, many
researchers offer different ideas on just what blended learning means, as there are many different
executions of the concept by diverse educational institutions and at all levels from primary to
graduate school. Of note, despite its growing popularity as an option for grades 6-12 most
research into blended learning has been conducted on undergraduate and graduate students.
Gonzalez and Vodicka (2012) recently completed research into the blended learning
phenomenon as a disruptive innovation in the realm of education. The research team determined
there is no easy definition for blended learning, but there is the core concept that the control over
a learner’s space and time has shifted from the instructor to the student, thereby increasing
accessibility to populations that before were not able to attend school, a specific program, or find
an alternative for taking a specific course (Gonzalez & Vodicka, 2012). The two researchers
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

35

also created categories for blended learning, based upon the mixture between in-class setting and
online learning.
1. Rotation model: The students rotate between the classroom and an online setting for
their lessons.
2. Flexible approach: Most learning takes place online, with teachers providing in-
person support when needed.
3. Self-blend model: The “core” classes needed take place in person, but the students
select from online options supplementary courses to take.
4. Enriched-virtual model: There is a whole-school experience for the students, but they
are receiving much of their instruction in an online setting in addition to their brick-
and-mortar practice.
Gonzalez and Vodicka (2012) did conclude their study with an intriguing implication for future
researchers and educators, that there does not have to be this dichotomy between traditional
instruction and blended instruction. Rather, all classrooms could potentially benefit from
incorporating blended elements into their design, such as online settings for student
collaboration, using social media to communicate with students, and supplementing lessons with
resources such as Khan Academy (Gonzalez & Vodicka, 2012).
For their research into Iranian English-learning students, Behjat, Yamini, and Bagheri
(2012) focused on blended learning – in a most basic format – as the combination of face-to-face
classroom instruction with online instruction. Their study of the blended model divided 107
students at an Iranian university into two groups, with the first receiving 100% face-to-face
instruction and the second group being taught through a blended model with 50% face-to-face
instruction and 50% online lessons, group discussions, and supplementary content. Pre- and
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

36

post-test were given to determine whether either mode of teaching held significant benefit over
the other, and some student subjects were surveyed to gather feedback about their experiences
(Behjat et al., 2012). The blended model cohort significantly outperformed the traditionally-
taught cohort, and in their effort to determine potential reasons the researchers concluded the
24/7 access to instructional and supplementary materials – notably including more diverse
reading material – promoted higher levels of autonomous reading and studying (Behjat et al.,
2012).
In their study of the University of Brussels E-Modules system, Christova and Mihai
(2011) took a more conceptual approach in their definition of blended learning, stating that the
model is based upon a nonlinear process unconfined by time and space as opposed to the
traditional, linear, scheduled classroom. Much as Gonzalez and Vodicka (2012) did before, the
researchers argue that learning itself is asynchronous and not linear and confined by time and
space, and this is why the blended mode of instruction has found such great success in research
and in practice (Christova & Mihai, 2011). The Brussels E-Modules system grew from an online
system for office hours and video lectures into one of the most successful blended programs in
the world, with students found across all of Europe (Christova & Mihai, 2011). The researchers
credit much of this growth to an intentional focus upon three foundational components of the
system’s blended model: 1) a continued emphasis on face-to-face classroom quality, 2) the
development of online webinars, and 3) and a stable and reliable e-learning platform (Christov &
Mihai, 2011). Student feedback supports this focus of the researchers, as graduates and current
students cite all three components as attending to critical learning needs, and the evolution of the
program has aligned with ongoing demands placed by the educational market (Christova &
Mihai, 2011).
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

37

Zaeri (2013) would agree with the aforementioned blended learning research teams that
the successfulness of a blended learning program is dictated by both the accessibility to quality
learning material it offers students, as well as the development of the program’s infrastructure
over time (Behjat et al., 2012; Christova & Mihai, 2011). Zaeri (2013) studied the development
of the Arab Open University, one of the largest blended learning systems in the world with
operations in eight different countries throughout the Middle East. Zaeri (2013) does delve
further into the importance of course development than Christova and Mihai (2011), however, by
stating the underlying infrastructure and the role that Information Specialists – and other
technical personnel – play in this process is of paramount importance. Additionally, Zaeri
(2013) stated the importance of the teaching staff’s IT knowledge and ability to navigate
software and lead online collaboration is also critical to the success of the blended learning
model. Due to these beliefs, the researcher stated, moving forward, blended learning should be
defined according to the adaptations being made from the traditional model, through the specific
types of interactions teachers will have with students, and through the type of course delivery
that will occur – due to the fact Web 2.0 offers a considerable amount of options in this capacity
(Zaeri, 2013).
In his research on the Open University in the United Kingdom – considered by many to
be the greatest blended learning model in the world – Fleck (2012) found much of the same
information and came to many of the same conclusions as Zaeri (2013). As Zaeri (2013) had
stated about the importance of IT in a course’s development, Fleck (2013) determined much of
the Open University’s success has been gained through its practice of having “teams” develop
and lead a course – faculty dedicated to that specific course, academic tutors that will support
students through online collaboration, and an IT team there to ensure a stable and high-quality
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

38

tech experience for students. University personnel as well as past students both expressed to
Fleck (2012) a solid technical experience when taking a course is an absolute must in order to
have a likewise positive academic experience. Also, Fleck (2012) concluded his research with a
quite interesting assertion, by stating the blended learning will soon become the norm in
education. Not so much in that classroom delivery will occur through a “blending” of face-to-
face instruction with online collaboration, but in that all teachers will soon have to supplement
their classrooms with content delivered online – an interesting spin on the definition of blended
learning earlier discussed in Gonzalez and Vodicka’s (2012) research.
TPACK
While the previously assessed methods were focused on either instructional approaches
or modes of learning, Koehler and Mishra (2009) first developed the TPACK framework as a
lesson planning system for teachers to use in their efforts to integrate technology into their
classrooms. The acronym stands for “technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge” (Koehler
& Mishra, 2009). The technology component is an elaboration upon Shulman’s PCK model
from the 1980’s (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Koehler and Mishra (2009) also use the TPACK
framework and the dynamic relationships it illustrates as an explanation for the dramatic range of
forms and quality in which one can find technology incorporated into America’s many
classrooms. When one examines the TPACK figure below they can see that the researchers had
each of technology, pedagogy, and content as a standalone component of classroom planning and
instruction. However, there also exists a relationship between each potential pair between the
three – i.e. the interplay between content knowledge and technological knowledge – as well as
the overall interaction centered between the three as a whole (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Koehler
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

39

and Mishra (2009) state the dynamic interplay between these three components is where
instruction can be improved upon.
Additionally, Koehler and Mishra (2009) sought to explain to educators and to later
researchers through a framework that because of the contextual nature of each and every school
and each and every classroom there would never be one “correct” way of integrating technology
into a lesson. Also, because technology is evolving at a far faster rate than the field of education
or even an individual educator could ever hope to keep up with, there would also never be one
“correct” way to “best” integrate technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This is why the TPACK
framework was designed to represent relationships rather than being constructed as a playbook
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Table 1
TPACK Model

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

40

Pamuk (2012) sought to study how technologically savvy teacher candidates would
handle integrating the TPACK model into their lesson planning methodology. The researcher
had 78 undergraduate students design a lesson plan based on content of their choosing that they
would then have to instruct their peers upon. Data was then collected through surveys and
interviews to gather feedback about their experiences. Pamuk (2012) determined no amount of
content knowledge or technological knowledge – or combination of – could compensate for a
lack of knowledge and understanding of pedagogy. Further, the findings supported the assertion
of Koehler and Mishra (2009) that a teacher must have fluency in all three spheres before they
have a stable construct to lesson plan and teach from. Pamuk (2012) concluded his study by
stating pre-service teachers would greatly benefit by having direct and specific instruction in
how to incorporate technology into a classroom, have that instruction modeled for them, and then
have time and space within which to practice these techniques.
Harris and Hofer’s (2011) study can be viewed as a complement to Pamuk’s (2012), as
the researchers applied the TPACK framework to veteran teachers selected for their potential
fluency in all three components – technology, pedagogy, and content. The researchers took
seven veteran social studies teachers and provided five months of professional development
designed around the TPACK framework. Notably, Harris and Hofer (2011) also provided
targeted training for the integration of specific types of technology into the classroom, by
devising a menu with classroom activities and the resources needed for each. By the end of the
study the researchers observed a number of key changes had occurred in all seven teachers’
classrooms (Harris & Hofer, 2011). Each of the subjects had developed a planning hierarchy of
content knowledge first, pedagogy second, and then technology third. Further, each of the
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

41

teachers believed technology should be used to increase accessibility for content and pedagogy,
and it should not be forced into the lesson planning process (Harris & Hofer, 2011). Yet, all
seven of the teachers’ expectations for technological rigor increased during the five-month study,
as each of them stated strong beliefs that technology was increasing student engagement in their
classrooms (Harris & Hofer, 2011). The researchers agreed with this assessment, as they
observed increases in student engagement as the study progressed and the teachers’ classrooms
became more student-centered. Additionally, Harris and Hofer (2011) explained teacher
feedback showed all seven of them becoming more concerned about student engagement as an
intellectual consideration instead of an emotional consideration. Last, all seven teachers declared
to Harris and Hofer (2011) that TPACK had increased their professional capacity, although it
had not necessarily revolutionized it.
Hutchison, Beschorner, and Schmidt-Crawford (2012) took an observation of Harris and
Hofer’s (2011) and purposefully integrated it into the methodology of their research - the
hierarchal progression of content, pedagogy, and then technology into the TPACK framework.
In their research, Hutchison et al. (2012) had a literacy teacher design the content and then
pedagogy for her 4
th
grade students. The researchers then worked with her to incorporate iPads
as an enhancement for her lessons. Hutchison et al. (2012) believed technology serves its
greatest purpose in the classroom when it is a curricular integration – as in this design – rather
than a technological integration – as in most cases where there is a mandate that technology be
used in the classroom or when it is coerced into the classroom through state standards, etc.
Hutchison et al. (2012) agreed with Koehler and Mishra (2009) that there is a dynamic interplay
between content, pedagogy, and technological knowledge, but they asserted the paramount
placement of content and pedagogy above technology.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

42

From their study of a 6
th
grade language arts teacher, Wetzel and Marshall (2011) would
more than likely concur with the two primary points of Hutchison et al. (2012). In fact, in their
report Wetzel and Marshall (2011) go so far as to state the content goals and learning activities
must be the drivers of the lesson, and that technology must serve the purpose of enhancer.
Second, Wetzel and Marshall (2011) stated it is in fact detrimental to force the integration of
technology, rather than allowing it to evolve organically from the lesson planning process –
supporting the earlier curricular versus technological integration argument from Hutchison et al.
(2012). Wetzel and Marshall (2011) also noted their subject found success from implementing
the TPACK framework directly to the classroom, through beginning each of her class sessions
by declaring that lesson’s content objectives, then stating to the students what the activities for
the day would be, and then covering with them how they were going to be using technology in
their lesson.
Other Methods for Integration
Besides the instructional approaches discussed and the TPACK model, there are other
ways in which technology is being adopted by teachers. While the research behind these various
methods is not as exhaustive as that of the potential relationship between constructivism and
technology, the following studies show considerable promise for improving the methods and
means for bringing technology into the classrooms.
Games have long been a staple for teachers to engage students in the classroom.
However, it is not until recent years that educators have sought to combine educational
objectives with the technological rise of console gaming and online gaming; a departure from the
more routine forms of “math races” or other traditional, analog forms of classroom games.
Many researchers do believe it natural that education should begin to aggressively incorporate
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

43

digital gaming into educational planning, due to the fact that digital gaming has come to
comprise such a significant role in students’ lives (Lin, Wei, & Hung, 2012). Assessing the
effectiveness of “edugaming” was the purpose of Lin et al.’s (2012) study that followed two
cohorts of students as they progressed through a required high school course on Taiwanese
history. The first cohort received traditional, teacher-centered instruction and the second cohort
participated in a game-based learning program. Pre- and post-tests were given to quantify
potential learning gains and the study ran for one month. The online gaming program was
designed around Prensky’s six elements of game-based learning: 1) rules, 2) goals/objectives, 3)
outcomes & feedback, 4) conflict, challenge, etc., 5) interaction, 6) representation and story.
Testing results found the game-based learning cohort significantly outperforming the traditional
cohort in overall gains (Lin et al., 2012). In fact, further analysis of the data showed a direct
correlation between time spent playing the history game online and improvement in testing
scores (Lin et al., 2012). Additionally, surveys were given to the gaming cohort, and their
responses indicated a strong belief – over 90% of participants – that the gaming program
increased their motivation to learn (Lin et al., 2012). Lin et al. (2012) do discuss in their
research previously cited dangers in game-based learning – such as the students’ focus shifting to
the playing aspect instead of actual learning, content, etc. – but the team did not observe any of
these phenomena during their study.
Lin et al. (2012) discuss the potential combination of game-based learning and virtual
learning communities (VLC) in their research, as the impact of online communities has been
tremendous in the lives of adolescents in recent years. VLC’s have had a presence in school
environments in prevalence for about a decade now, especially so in higher education. However,
their existence has never seen a foothold of the sort seen by many social networks that have
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

44

arisen during this Web 2.0 era. Research has shown students are more likely to engage in
meaningful discussion through VLC’s than in person, and there is a correlation between students
participating in VLC’s and academic performance (Deng & Tavares, 2013; Ryman, Burrell,
Hardham, Richardson & Ross, 2009).
Deng and Tavares (2013) sought to understand the dynamics behind student participation
in institution-sponsored VLC’s. They followed a cohort of pre-service education students
through their final coursework, and then during their student teaching periods in the months that
followed. The students’ school and professors had course sites established through an open
source program called Moodle, where the teachers oversaw discussion threads, posted course
content and assignments, and accepted assignments (Deng & Tavares, 2013). The researchers
had initially planned to observe student participation while supplementing with occasional
interviews. However, Deng and Tavares (2013) found the cohort had instead created a Facebook
group where they asked each other questions, posted research links, and interacted in other
meaningful ways (Deng & Tavares, 2013). Students were still participating with the Moodle
site, but primarily only through accessing and submitting assignments. To the contrary, on their
Facebook group the students were participating in question and answer sessions, posting
thoughts, and linking online resources for their peers on an almost daily basis (Deng & Tavares,
2013). One example the researchers offered saw a student post a question concerning lack of
clarity around an assignment the class had due in the coming days. Within a matter of minutes
there were more replies to this single question than in all of the Moodle threads combined –
including a fellow student posting a screenshot of where to exactly find the resources their fellow
student needed (Deng & Tavares, 2013). When quizzed on their participation through Facebook
rather than Moodle, students stated that Facebook was already a way of life for them and felt
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

45

more comfortable to use. Also, the students felt confined by their lack of control and editing
power on Moodle – two critical components for the world of Web 2.0. Upon reflection, Deng
and Tavares (2013) stated their strong belief that the Facebook site was a critical tool for
bringing the cohort together socially and emotionally. Their research raises a valuable question
for consideration – how can educators find opportunities to integrate practices that are already
natural for digital natives in order to increase student engagement or motivation?
Conole et al. (2008) found similar student responses to that Deng and Tavares (2013),
specifically in how students found institutional-sponsored software cumbersome and
inconvenient when compared to what they are already using in their daily lives. In Conole et
al.’s (2008) study, VLC’s did not rank in the most useful technological applications for students.
Instead, over half of the students interviewed listed it as a negative aspect of their educational
experience, due to the fact it was unreliable, had an inconvenient structure, and that teachers had
unrealistic expectations for its perceived reliability.
In their research, Ryman et al. (2009) sought to define what factors comprised a learning
community. They stated their research was considerably relevant due to the rise of VLC’s and
Web 2.0, and due to the fact that many schools were pushing resources towards VLC’s without
necessarily understanding how to structure or maintain one (Ryman et al., 2009). Ryman et al.
(2009) offered that a fundamental purpose of any VLC, or learning community in general, is to
transform differing views and/or alternative information into new knowledge. Also, group
members come to rely on one another, for both questioning their beliefs or perceived knowledge
as well for collaborative learning opportunities (Ryman et al., 2009). Ryman et al. (2009) give
five key components of any successful and sustainable learning community:
1. All members have a strong social presence in the community.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

46

2. Members explore their purpose for being a part of the community in an authentic
fashion.
3. The members are interdependent on one another for their success.
4. Critical – and sometimes even uncomfortable – dialogue occurs.
5. Learners gain new knowledge through this metaphorical crucible, and this is where
personal transformation occurs.
Although their study does not necessarily focus on the digital nature of VLC’s and learning
communities, much of the underlying principle(s) behind Ryman et al.’s (2009) assertions can be
supported through the studies of Deng and Tavares (2013) and Conole et al. (2008). The cohort
observed by Deng and Tavares (2013) eschewed their university-supplied Moodle site for
Facebook because of its more authentic setting – it was not moderated by a professor, etc. – and
because of this their dialogue could be more exploratory. Deng and Tavares (2013) state that the
Facebook group was critical for the students to develop social and emotional bonds with their
peers, and Ryman et al. (2009) would state this was interdependence at work. Similar
conclusions could be made about Conole et al.’s (2008) study. Since the university-sponsored
VLC was inconvenient to navigate and was unreliable, the students were potentially never able
to even come to the exploratory stage of their being there, and thus not be able to establish a
social presence. Interdependence and critical dialogue were never fostered and the VLC never
formed itself.
The Impact of Technology
What has research found to be the impact of efforts at bringing technology into the
classroom? Researchers have been attempting to answer this question in a general sense, as well
as according to the following list of questions. How have the efforts impacted student
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

47

achievement? Has technology increased student engagement or their motivation to learn? Has
technology increased student collaboration? How has technology impacted the climate – or
culture – of schools?
In their numerous studies, Ertmer and research teams (Ertmer, 1999; Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer et al., 2012) have continually come to the conclusion that
simply introducing technology into a classroom will not lead to high-level usage and a
transformative climate. Policy makers and school officials have been treating technology itself
as an agent of change, rather than using leadership, professional development, teacher
preparation programs, and other resources as agents of change (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010). A potential reason for this disconnect occurs when teachers are asked – and in many
cases forced – to adopt technology, then a resultant change should occur in their ideology,
content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and/or their course materials. In almost all studied
cases the change has been course materials, and this is why most change has been observed as
occurring as low-level usage (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Also, most teachers are not
digital natives and are therefore in a developing phase of adopting technology. This leads to
their adoption efforts in the classroom most often occurring as an “in addition to” change in their
current classroom and instructional practices (Prestridge, 2012).
Many educators who have been surveyed or interviewed do recognize that students are
immersed in the Web 2.0 world, and that they must adopt these types of technological practices
in order to best engage students (Ertmer et al., 2012). Yet, adopting technology is far different
than adopting a new curriculum or new textbook, as technology is evolving at a far quicker rate
than any single person or body can adopt and then integrate it into the classroom (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Koehler & Mishra, 2009). With these noted difficulties, it does make
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

48

sense for many teachers to be hesitant in changing their pedagogical practices – where much
meaningful change is to occur if technological is to be integrated into one’s classroom – when
most teacher evaluation systems do not equate “good teaching” with using technology in
meaningful ways (Ermter & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
As noted earlier, many researchers have discussed the fact that technology is itself not a
singular pedagogical practice. Instead, it offers a range of possibilities for a teacher’s current
pedagogical practices (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Tondeur et al., 2008). Yang and Wu (2012)
examined the different ways technology can impact a teacher’s pedagogical practices, and they
offered three possibilities at the conclusion of their research into DST. First, technology can be
integrated as a replacement for current instructional practices. This is a low-level usage, and it is
often seen in the form of computers becoming a source of skill drills for students, or as a
platform to taking quizzes, etc. (Yang & Wu, 2012). Next, technology can be integrated as an
amplifier for existing pedagogical practices. In this case, computers could be used to supplement
classroom-based research efforts, or technology could be used to offer alternative media for
classroom presentations (Yang & Wu, 2012). Last, technology can be transformative for one’s
pedagogical practices. According to Yang and Wu (2012), this is where a meaningful stage
occurs as this is when a reorganization of learning has occurred and has led the teacher’s
classroom to become student-centered in its planning and execution. Other researchers offer
complementary discussion about this stage in their research, specifically in how technology can
be a significant source of differentiation for student learning levels and modalities when the
teacher has created a student-centered classroom through an array of instructional activities,
investigatory methods, and assessment options (Bell, 2010; Conole et al., 2008; Keengwe &
Onchwari, 2011). In their research on an iPad pilot program, Hutchison, Beschorner, and
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

49

Schmidt-Crawford (2012) came to similar conclusions on the power of technology to provide
differentiated learning opportunities for students. The team observed iPads creating a
customized learning opportunity for each reading student in the study, by providing tools such as
built-in dictionaries, word tracking apps, and text reading systems that offering potential for
bringing the content to each learner’s individual level of need (Hutchison et al., 2012).
Different efforts at integrating technology into classrooms have seen potentially
significant impacts upon student achievement, in many different ways and with many different
types of learners. Foulger and Jimenez-Silva (2007) found technology improved learning
outcomes for ELL students participating in writing instruction, due to what they believed were
its potential for increasing authentic learning opportunities and peer collaboration. Numerous
studies found DST programs based in Web 2.0 instruments saw participants make significant
learning gains over their peers conversely taught through traditional, teacher-centered methods
(Xu et al., 2011; Yang & Wu, 2012). In his analysis of the world of Web 2.0 and its relationship
to education, Wohlwend (2010) stated that students spend a significant amount of time away
from school gaming both online and in-home. This lifestyle and resulting expectation for
engagement have in turn created a valuable opportunity for educators to converge gaming and
learning into an educational opportunity. Lin et al. (2012) found there is indeed significant
potential in this opportunity, as their study found students participating in game-based learning
could significantly outperform traditionally taught students in making educational gains. Many
researchers have asserted that these observed educational gains are most likely occurring due to
increases in student engagement and motivation that are inspired by the integration of
technology. On the aforementioned topic of game-based learning, the iPad pilot program studied
by Hutchison, et al. (2012) observed that the tablets led to significant increases in student
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

50

engagement through the many different apps that allowed for educational gaming opportunities.
The teacher concurred with this assessment, stating the personalized and immediate feedback the
games provided created meaningful learning opportunities for the students (Hutchison et al.,
2012). Rowsell, Saudelli, Scott, and Bishop (2013) conducted a similar study to Hutchison et al.
(2012) and came to similar conclusions as the earlier researchers. The team observed a multisite
iPad pilot across multiple primary-grade, private schools in Toronto (Rowsell et al., 2013). Both
researcher observations and teacher feedback told a story of increased student engagement and
motivation, increased student-centered class climates, and increased peer collaboration (Rowsell
et al., 2013). Notably, almost every teacher in the study asked the question to students “how do
you use technology at home,” and this flattening of power dynamics on multiple occasions led to
intellectual discourse about how to learn and the meaning of learning – and in turn significant
gains in student engagement and motivation (Rowsell et al., 2013).
While much research on integration of technology has focused on urban settings,
Keengwe, Schnellert, and Mills (2012) conducted a study on the effects on school climate
through a 1:1 laptop initiative at a rural Midwestern high school. Surveys were given to both
students and teachers in an effort to gather their perceptions on the impact of the laptop initiative.
Teachers reported that the program had a diverse range of positive effects on the school climate
similar to those already discussed, such as increased student achievement, increased levels of
student engagement, increased opportunities to provide for differentiated learning needs of
students, and increased opportunities to engage students in 21
st
century learner skills (Keengwe
et al., 2012). However, teachers also reported to the researchers potential impacts not as
commonly found in other literature, such as the laptop program having a positive impact on
school attendance and on overall parental satisfaction with the school’s educational programs
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

51

(Keengwe et al., 2012). Students reported similar feedback to previous literature, such as the
laptops providing an increased amount of opportunities for peer collaboration, and the laptop
initiative increasing their overall engagement with content and desire to learn (Keengwe et al.,
2012).
Critique of Prior Research
This review was a purposeful sampling of current literature focused on efforts at
integrating technology into the classroom. Intentional focus was given to qualitative case
studies, as this was the methodology utilized by this study. Areas of focus were given to the
current state of technology in education, conceptual frameworks that can help in bringing
technology into the classroom, barriers to these adoption efforts, and the impact of literature on
the classroom and on school climate.
After reviewing the literature, it is difficult to disagree with the observation there is a
complex relationship of variables that make it very difficult to develop a uniform framework for
technology integration. Yet, the fact that improvements must be made in the process is
undeniable. The overwhelming majority of research in near uniform in its conclusion that most
current technological integration occurs in a teacher-centered and low-level format, and this is
discouraging to say the least.
There are two global conclusions to be made from this literature review that offer further
color to the difficulty of the situation. The first being efforts to focus on specific types of
technology during the integration process are arguably doomed to failure – in one of the
variables that must be considered, i.e. student engagement, technological relevance, etc. –
because of the fact technology itself is evolving at such a rapid pace. There is even the strong
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

52

possibility that by the time this dissertation is published, much of the research found in this
literature review might be outdated due to studies evolving to meet these technological advances.
Second, school-based efforts at integration should be focused upon the context of the
situation rather than trying to implement a “cookie-cutter” policy. Ertmer’s (Ertmer, 1999;
Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Ertmer et al., 2012) studies illustrate the evolving
importance of school culture to integration efforts, as can be seen by her most recent work with
award-winning teachers who almost unanimously expounded on the critical nature of veteran
staff leadership for the success of any adoption effort. Pamuk’s (2012) work complements this
well, as it discusses the efforts that leadership should make in ensuring there is both a depth of
knowledge and an understanding of its application in place before any team should even begin
adopting any form of technology. Ensure that your veteran leaders know what the technology is,
ensure that they know how to use it in a meaningful way, and then have them spearhead staff
adoption efforts. Again, though, this is but one strategy – albeit it founded on contemporary
research – among many, even as it relates to just the single variable of school culture.
As can be seen through the review of literature, context is critical with integration efforts.
This study will now examine the impact on climate and culture of one school that has made
concerted efforts at integrating technology into all aspects of its school environment, a school
recognized for academic excellence and its use of technology. Yet, how did the school leaders
inform their decision-making during each step of the process? How have teachers been prepared
to execute high-level usage of technology during class instruction? These are questions that
prior research has sought to examine and further raised, and now similar questions will drive the
efforts of this study.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

53

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This case study describes the approach one school used to integrate technology into its
instructional practices, and how this effort potentially impacted the school’s climate. The
existing body of research suggests teacher ideology and the already present school climate will
prove critical to the success of any adoption effort, and the instructional practices of the school’s
staff will prove fundamental in the level of ICT usage to be observed and the then resulting level
of engagement of the school’s student population. Thus, the researcher sought to determine what
forms of technology had been integrated into this high-achieving school, how the technology was
being integrated into instructional practices, and the perceived impact of these integration efforts
on all aspects of the school’s environment.
Purpose of the Study
Technology has become an integral part of society in many different ways, to the point
that researchers have created lines of demarcation for the purposes of study – digital natives
versus digital migrants, Literacy 1.0 versus Literacy 2.0, etc. Yet, the area tasked with preparing
the next generation of citizens has been potentially the slowest in keeping up with this digital
revolution, as society has watched education struggle to integrate technology in meaningful
ways. The last decade has seen incredible investment in technology, with schools now finding
access to hardware and software that previous generations could have only imagined. But even
with this unprecedented level of access there still remains a high volume of resistance to this
change. Research is continuing to build the case for technology as a necessity for engaging and
motivating students in the classroom, but both first order and second order barriers continue to
persist. Even worse, other research has shown the detriment to student learning that can occur
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

54

when technology is not integrated with intent and purpose – e.g. through forced integration
policies, school cultures in opposition to ICT integration, and more.
Yet, there are many examples of high achieving schools that are noted for their ability to
have integrated technology in meaningful ways. What factors led to the school successfully
getting their staff onboard? What impact has teaching had on the climate of the school? What
role did the culture play in facilitating the tech adoption? What impact has the tech had on
student learning and/or teaching practices? While these and a plethora of other questions abound
when considering the history of these schools’ efforts – and some of the questions have indeed
been answered through this study – below are the problem statement and purpose statement of
this study.
Problem Statement – 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 technology affects teaching and learning.
Purpose of the Study – The purpose of the study was to identify the impact of technology on
teaching and learning practices in a high-technology use K-12 school.
Conceptual Model
The thematic dissertation group examined many different approaches for assessing the
perceived impact of ICT integration on both student learning and on school climate. Ultimately,
it was decided that the TPACK model offered the best pre-existing framework for which to
observe the impact of technology on classroom instruction, and that Bolman and Deal’s four
frames of leadership would offer the best lens for examining school climate and leadership.
The TPACK framework is illustrated below. The dissertation group came to the
conclusion this model offered the potential for significant discussion concerning the context
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

55

within which the technology is being and/or has been integrated, as well as for the discussion
that can take place when all ingredients for the recipe of a successful implementation plan are in
place.
Table 2
TPACK Model

Research Questions
This study sought to address the following research questions.
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom?
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

56

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 thematic group had a great amount of discussion over the formation of the research
questions over the course of three months of meetings. The team decided one question should
focus on what technology is even present in the schools, as that would provide a context over the
actual usage of ICT in the classrooms. Next, the group decided upon a question that focused on
the perceived impact of technology, as a significant amount of prior research discovered teacher
ideology over technology’s role in student learning has proven to be either a facilitator of ICT
adoption or a barrier. Last, the reciprocal relationship between technology and school climate is
a significant factor in the long-term success of any technology adoption plan, as well as the
actual level of ICT usage in a school’s classroom instruction.
Research Design
A qualitative study case study is ideally suited for studying a single phenomenon in its
natural setting, in an effort to understand why it has or is occurring (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative
researchers strive to understand how people interpret real world experiences, and what meanings
they attach to these experiences (Merriam, 2009). Rather than testing a theory, qualitative study
wants to inductively analyze a social phenomenon – meaning the researcher will gather a large
amount of rich data and then draw generalized conclusions (Merriam, 2009).
As outlined by Merriam (2009), there are a number of other characteristics of qualitative
case study that make it ideally suited for this study. In qualitative research, the researcher is the
primary instrument for the study being conducted. Additionally, the methods of information
gathering used by a case study contribute to a rich description of the phenomenon being studied,
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

57

which proves critical in the analysis stage since the phenomenon’s variables often prove difficult
to separate from its context (Merriam, 2009). Finally, the last reason for selecting a qualitative
case study format for this study included the nonrandom and purposeful sampling, since the
researcher wanted to intentionally study a school that has successfully integrated ICT into its
instructional model.
Sample and Population
Selection Process
In order to fulfill the purpose of their individual studies, the thematic group outlined
seven criteria for the selection of case study candidate schools. Since finding any one school that
would perfectly embody all criteria would potentially limit diversity in populations and the
additional context to debate these could bring, the group decided that any candidate school
would ultimately have to satisfy at least five of the criteria. These criteria were as follows:
1. An API ranking of 7 or better, for 3 or more years (private and out-of-state schools
should present similar rationale).
2. A structured technology plan.
3. Evidence of grants and partnerships to support ICT efforts and/or 21
st
century learner
framework.
4. Evidence of research-based ICT practices.
5. A mission statement that specifically addresses technology integration.
6. A minimum student population of 400 students.
7. Forms of recognition/awards for the school’s efforts at ICT integration.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

58

Site Selection for Case Study
Roosevelt High School (hereafter referred to as RHS) is a public high school serving 443
students in grades 9-12. It was established in 2008 within the Tipton Independent School
District, which serves the city of Tipton as well as parts of other local cities.
RHS is part of an international network of schools focused on high-level usage of
technology. This network is comprised of over 100 schools in the United States, with more
located overseas. All of these schools are based upon a model first launched in the mid-90s on
the west coast. This campus was born out of a concern from local business leaders that students
were not being prepared for success in the globally competitive world created by the digital age.
The model was based on a combination of project-based learning and what have since become
known as the 21
st
Century Learner Skills such as collaboration, communication, global
awareness, and critical thinking. Through various grants and a subsequent partnership with
another educational organization, this international network was given the resources necessary to
see its rapid growth across the country and overseas.
RHS was identified as an ideal candidate for the researcher’s case study for a number of
reasons. First, the campus’s geographic location offered two unique opportunities for the
researcher. The opportunity to study a school site outside of California – where a majority of the
thematic group’s case studies would be conducted – would potentially offer complimentary or
contrasting data to that collected within the state. Next, the location would offer a personal
convenience to the researcher, as he accepted a professional promotion that led him to move to
the school’s area in the spring of 2014.
RHS is an academically high-performing school. Its home state schools are ranked
according to four key indices, and RHS significantly outperformed all state targets in these areas.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

59

Table 3
RHS Performance According to State Academic Indices
State Index State Target RHS Rank
Student Achievement 50 90
Student Progress 17 29
Closing Performance Gaps 55 85
Postsecondary Readiness 75 99

Due to its student academic performance, RHS received state recognition in the areas of
Reading/Language Arts and in Mathematics for the 2012-2013 school year.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

60

Table 4
RHS – Meeting Standards for Thematic Study
Population of 400+ Yes - 443
API Ranking of 7+ for 3 consecutive years There were no results for all of TX for
2011-2012, but for 2010-2011 RHS also
received state exemplary marks for overall
performance and for a number of other key
metrics.
Evidence of research-based tech practices Curriculum is based on project-based
learning and 21
st
century learner
framework.
Mission statement references tech Yes, the school’s mission and learner
outcomes are based on the 21
st
century
learner framework – collaboration,
communication, global citizenship,
professional ethics, and intellectual pursuit.
The school wants to prepare its learners to
be successful in “an information-based and
technologically-advanced society.”
Structured tech plan Part of the international network.
Tech grants, etc. Part of the international network.
Recognition for tech usage Part of the international network.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

61

Instrumentation
The various instruments employed for this case study consisted of a staff survey collected
before the researcher began onsite fieldwork, a document analysis began before and then
continued during onsite fieldwork, staff and administrative interviews conducted onsite, and
onsite observations with corresponding checklists. The researcher wanted to utilize enough
methods in order to maximize both validity and reliability of the data, but at the same time use a
simple enough approach that would allow for the rich description that makes a qualitative
approach ideal for this study.
Each of the instruments is aligned to the research questions, and each instrument
developed was designed through the efforts of the thematic group throughout a series of three
meetings conducted during the winter of 2013-2014.
Staff Surveys
The staff survey (Appendix D) was designed with a limit of twenty questions. This
number was perceived as key, as the thematic group wanted a number of questions that would
allow for data gathering in all areas the research questions are concerned with, but not so long
that respondents might begin rushing through the questions with more of a worry for finishing
than responding thoughtfully. Surveys began with four questions gathering background
information on the teacher, and then three open-ended questions intended to gather teachers’
perceptions of available technology – to be triangulated against observations as well as school
documents. The survey then concluded with a final section of thirteen questions with answer
choices structured according to four Lykert scale response options. This section focused on
perceived values for technology in general, school supports for technology and the teacher, and
the perceived impact of technology on student learning and school climate.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

62

Document Analysis
The document analysis (Appendix E) began in earnest prior to the researcher’s onsite
period at the campus through an analysis of the school’s website. Additionally, documents were
requested from the administrative team two months in advance of the onsite period, such as the
school’s technology plan, professional development plans from previous years, any professional
development plans for the next school year, meeting minutes from past strategic planning
sessions, self-studies and other documents completed for the accreditation process, and more.
Staff Interviews
Interviews were conducted on an individual basis with both teachers and administrators
while the researcher was onsite. The interviews were conducted for a number of purposes – e.g.
further triangulation of data, the richness in data pulled directly from sources connected to the
phenomenon, etc. – but primarily for the extraction of perceptions surrounding technology’s role
on the campus and its impact on the school culture. Namely, the interviews would pull this data
in an open-ended environment from key role players on the campus. In order to identify these
key candidates, the researcher first spoke with the principal and requested the names of
leadership members and teachers that had played critical roles in either supporting or resisting
campus change centered around technology.
The interview protocols were designed by the thematic group under the direction of its
chair, and it was determined during this process to develop specific templates each for teachers
and administrators. The teacher protocol (Appendix A) had fourteen questions, with 4-5 for each
of the three research questions. The administrative protocol (Appendix B) contained thirteen
questions with 3-5 for each research question. The teacher protocol was developed to mine
perceptions for technology’s role in student learning and instructional practices, while the
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

63

administrative protocol contains questions more focused at the global level of the campus rather
than the classroom.
Observations
The observation checklist (Appendix C) was designed to gather direct information
focused on what technology was present in the classroom and how it was influencing classroom
instruction. A majority of the checklist contains questions and checkboxes for the researcher to
document what technology is in the classroom, as well as answering the question of how it is
being used. The latter portion offered areas for the researcher to capture notes and answer
questions concerning how the technology is influencing behaviors in the classroom.
Observations were conducted during the days on which the researcher was onsite, and the
administrative team and the master schedule played a vital role in identifying classrooms to
observe. The researcher made a special effort to observe a broad range of teachers, from first-
year teachers to multi-year veterans, across disciplines, etc.
Data Collection
The researcher was trained in methodology through both general and concentration
courses during the USC EdD program, with two courses being dedicated entirely to conducting
research – Inquiry I (general-focus) and Inquiry II (qualitative-focus). Additionally, the
researcher’s thematic group met monthly under the supervision of its chair in order to design the
study, design the instruments, work with IRB for study approval, practice fieldwork, and then
analyze research data.
The researcher first established contact with the school site administrator in February
2014. After lines of communication were established, the researcher shared the purpose of the
study and its methodology with the site administrator over the course of multiple phone calls and
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

64

emails. A timeline for data collection was established, with initial staff surveys distribution
planned for late-October 2014, and the onsite fieldwork to begin in mid-November 2014. In
compliance with IRB guidelines, all interviewees were informed of the fact their participation
was entirely optional, that they could skip any question or portion of the interview at any time, or
that they could stop the process altogether at any time. The researcher had all participants sign a
letter of consent, for which each was given a copy for their records as well.
Data Analysis
Method for Data Analysis
The researcher utilized Creswell’s (2007) six-step method for data analysis, as follows:
1. The data was organized and prepared for its analysis. All interviews were
transcribed, and all instruments had their data coded into groups.
2. The researcher made a high-level pass of all data, in order to gather a general picture
of what was potentially found and to explore any general themes that might be
present.
3. The coding process was begun, with a focus on chunking related groups of data.
4. The researcher began grouping codes into a smaller number of potentially critical
themes.
5. The researcher created a thematic narrative of the study and its findings, focusing on
adding description and meaning to the critical themes pulled from the data.
6. The researcher drew conclusions from his own interpretations of the data, in an effort
to answer the study’s research questions.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

65

Validity and Reliability
With any research study, validity and reliability are foundational. With qualitative
studies, reliability is difficult to obtain due to the lack of generalizability from such a small
sample group and due to the fundamental nature of phenomenology (Merriam, 2009). Therefore,
all efforts must be made by the researcher to ensure the highest levels of validity. Through the
efforts of all members of the thematic group, the research questions and its methodology aligned
with the most current research and practices. Additionally, the thematic group members all
worked under the tutelage of an experienced research chair to develop shared data instruments,
also increasing the validity of the study. Next, the researcher used a broad array of data sources
in order to maximize triangulation of data, ensuring themes and codes pulled from the data were
as valid as possible (Merriam, 2009). Last, the researcher made use of external auditors both
before the study began and after its conclusion, further enhancing the validity of the study.
Summary
This chapter outlined the methodology for this qualitative case study into the effective
integration of ICT by RHS into its instructional practices and overall school climate. Chapter 3
offered descriptions for the purpose and research questions of this case study, the selection
process for the school site, the development of and use of the study’s instrumentation, and the
process by which the gathered data was analyzed.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

66

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
This chapter will summarize the findings of the case study. The chapter consists of three
primary sections: Overview of the Case Study, Findings by Research Question, and Discussion
of the Conceptual Framework and Themes from the Data.

Overview of the Case Study
Purpose of study
The purpose of the study was to identify the practices that have promoted the use of
technology to transform teaching and learning in a high-performing secondary school. The best
format for achieving this purpose was determined to be a qualitative case study, due to its ability
to offer a deep and rich narrative on not just the best practices of this exemplary program, but
also on the origination and expectations behind these plans, on their execution, and then on the
perceived impact of new technologies on both the instructional practices of the school’s teachers
and on its overall climate and culture. The research questions that drove the study are as follows.
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
3. In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where
does the leadership come from?
Methodology and Participants
A qualitative case study was completed over the course of a two-month period at RHS, as
the researcher worked together with site and district administrators to gather documents for
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

67

analysis, complete anonymous staff surveys, conduct staff interviews, and complete classroom
and school-wide observations.
Findings by Research Question
Question 1A: What technology is present?
Hardware. The backbone of RHS’s technology efforts is its 1:1 laptop initiative. All
students have their own personal Macbook, with 10
th
-12
th
grade students having Macbook Pros
and the 9
th
grade (and future) students having Macbook Airs. All staff also have their own
personal Macbook Pro. In addition, each department has a cart of iPads its teachers have access
to. Departments that use more intensive software for tasks such as film editing or graphic design
also have iMacs in their classrooms, and there are also iMacs located in different student
common areas for more resource-heavy tasks.
Each classroom also comes equipped with a Smart Board. RHS adds further
modifications to each Smart Board, and these include speaker systems and additional lighting
sources. This allows the Smart Boards the capability of serving as media centers, interactive
touch boards, or as traditional projection systems. In the researcher’s observations the Smart
Boards were actively used, as over half of the 11 classroom observations conducted saw the
Smart Boards used in various instructional capacities.
Individual departments also have hardware unique to their learning needs. The science
department has Vernier equipment and corresponding software, such as LabQuest Pros and
Logger Pros. These instruments connect to student computers and collect data during
experiments, such as temperature, motion, radioactivity, and other measures. The art and film
department also possess dedicated software. Students have access to handheld DSLR cameras
for high-definition filming, green screens, and multiple iMacs for more intensive video editing
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

68

needs. Additionally, the film teacher had recently completed a grant and will soon be receiving
new handheld cameras capable of filming in 4K (four times high definition) resolution. The art
classroom also has dedicated iMacs available for graphic design and other demanding needs. It
also has advanced printing capabilities, with both large-scale, commercial printers and
consumer-grade 3D printers.
Table 5

Software. RHS preloads each of the staff and student Macbooks with the full Microsoft
Office suite, the full Adobe Creative suite, and all standard Apple programs. This allows any
user access to professional grade software that would be found in any typical business or artistic
setting. For example, all students have access to Photoshop and Illustrator, two programs
typically utilized by professionals in marketing or design fields. In addition to these programs,
departments can also work with the school’s administrative team to acquire other needed
software, such as the film department’s purchasing of Final Cut Pro – another professional-grade
0
2
4
6
8
10
12

iMacs

Calculators

Cameras
(various)

iPads

Smart
Board

Macbooks

Q5: What technology hardware do you have in your
classroom? (12 respondents, 2 skipped question)
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

69

tool. RHS also allows all staff and students the ability to download and install any free software
found on the Internet. The researcher also observed a number of web-based software in heavy
usage, such as Google Docs and Hangouts.
RHS uses a proprietary, web-based system called Echo for running all of its courses. The
program is built around PBL, while still maintaining the ability to centralize the needs of
teachers and students. RHS requires each of its teachers to have all class agendas uploaded to
Echo, provide all rubrics for all projects, maintain an up to date grade book, and publish a
resource database for each project. Echo also allows teachers to create discussion forums, to
create learning groups, and to access an international network database of videos for instructional
purposes. Finally, Google Apps integrate directly into Echo, allowing the teachers to use Google
Docs, Hangouts, and other apps seamlessly within their courses.
Table 6

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Too much to list…
Google Classrooms
Apple products
Smart software
iPad apps
Any free software we want
Microsoft Office
Adobe Suite
Q6: What technology software is available for classroom
use? (12 respondents, 3 skipped)
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

70

Q1B: How is technology used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?
Echo. RHS’s Echo platform plays a central role in technology as a medium for student
assessment. The researcher observed two different classrooms accessing Echo in order to launch
either quizzes or tests the students were taking during those periods. Additionally, all but one
interviewee discussed Echo’s role in centralizing assessments for students. During one
classroom observation the teacher gave the researcher a tour of his classroom in Echo, taking
care to point out how all of the quizzes for the unit of study were preloaded into Echo.
In addition to the use of Echo, the researcher also observed other technologies being used
for assessment purposes. One classroom was using an online platform called Socrative that
allowed the teacher to host assessments, as well as offering them another tool for student
collaboration and teacher resource sharing. In this case the students were working on a quiz
launched in class and timed, all of them through their Macbooks. However, one of the teachers
explained to the researcher they have quizzes open for longer periods of time and the students
can access these at anytime via any device, laptop or tablet or smartphone. The researcher also
observed two other classrooms using Kahoot as a check for student understanding. While this
web-based resource is not in the traditional form of a quiz or test, it does allow the teacher an
opportunity to see what students understand and where holes in content knowledge might exist.
Kahoot operates as an educational game where students are competing against one another for
points earned via correct responses. Students can participate through either their laptops or
through the Kahoot app on smartphones or tablets.
Assessment. Every person interviewed mentioned using technology as a tool for
assessment. When the researcher states assessment, he intends as a tool for determining student
mastery of content. This is an important difference from assessment as a means for grading
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

71

students in a summative fashion, even more so in the case of RHS since the school’s
instructional approaches and environment itself is founded upon PBL. Additionally, technology
was never discussed during interviews nor observed by the researcher as something being
assessed in and of itself. In fact, later in the chapter there will be greater discussion around the
fact that technology has been dropped as a specific learner outcome for the school.
Student group work, reflections, and rubrics are another area technology is providing the
RHS staff a method for assessing students. Six different staff members discussed how they use
Google Docs as a method for assessing student collaboration. Google Docs allows teachers the
ability to access version histories of documents, offering them the ability to see what student has
made what changes or contributions to the document. In a PBL environment where group work
is the norm, social loafing is a very real concern and one of the most common criticisms from
PBL’s critics. However, the staff members that discussed technology as a medium for student
group work all strongly believed in their capacity to accurately gauge student contributions to
group products.
All interviewed staff members mentioned the use of reflections and rubrics – most often
in conjunction with Echo – as a method for assessing student work, specifically in terms of group
work. In addition, the researcher also observed two different classrooms completing reflections
on group assignments they had just completed. It is RHS policy for reflections to be included in
group work rubrics. In the outset of any group assignment at RHS, students create social
contracts where they determine the roles each will play in the assignment as well as contributions
each team member will be expected to make. This social contract makes up much of the student
reflection process, as well as general thoughts on the team members and the assignment itself.
The two sets of reflections the researcher observed were all being completed through Echo. One
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

72

classroom had just completed a project where groups of students had been tasked with creating
new toys, with a focus on the design of the toys and the creation of corresponding marketing
materials. For their reflections, the students spread out across the classroom in an effort to best
ensure the anonymity completing the reflections online would allow. They then answered
questions focusing on their group partners, such as fulfillments of social contract obligations,
general observations on group members, and thoughts on ideas such as takeaways from the
experience and ideas on what to do differently next time.
In another classroom the researcher also observed the use of technology as a
complementary assessment tool for hands-on, analog work the students were completing. In one
advanced mathematics course the students had recently completed a project where they used
mousetraps to design self-powered cars. The unit of study was on linear speed and angular
speed. The students gathered raw data through live testing and then had to complete final
assessments online through Echo, where they input this data and then performed various
functions with the sets. Through practices such as these, the RHS teachers are ensuring that
technology is remaining a part of the process rather than proving the purpose itself.
Differentiation. The researcher found much data centering upon technology as a tool for
differentiation amongst RHS staff. Half – 4 of 8 – of the interviewed teachers stated the
importance of technology in this role. The broad range of tech offerings at RHS allows the
students significant creativity and personalization when completing the open-formatted PBL
assignments typical at the school. One teacher explained at length the potential herein this ICT
spectrum for her students. A common assignment in her history/English hybrid course is for a
student(s) to present to the rest of the class their perceptions of an event or person from a novel
they are reading. Traditionally, this would involve a student standing at the front of class and
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

73

speaking, sometimes with supplements such as a posterboard and sometimes not. She stated that
some students will still elect to take this traditional approach. However, most of her students
would prefer other options – most often based in technology – such as videoing themselves
ahead of time making the presentation, using visual software such as Keynotes or Photoshop to
create their content and then do a voiceover presentation, or even utilizing their love for gaming
to recreate the scene in question within “MineCraft” and present this to the class and walk them
through their thoughts. Regardless, she is adapting to the talents and passions of the students
rather than forcing them to adapt to her, and technology allows her greater possibilities in
accomplishing this differentiated approach.
Another way technology is allowing differentiated instruction for staff at RHS is through
allowing them to create resource centers for their students, housed in Echo for the students to
have 24/7 access to. One math teacher discussed this ability with the researcher. The teacher
has been with RHS for a number of years, but has – and still believes so – struggled to marry
technology and instruction to the level that he perceives many of his peers to have done so.
However, in recent years he has begun “flipping his classroom” by providing instructional
content online, such as videos of him explaining how to perform the math procedures, linking to
other web-based instructional videos, and also linking to other more traditional online lessons
and practice sites. This has allowed him to differentiate for his students by focusing his actual
class time on practicing with students and remediating struggling learners, rather than focusing
his class time on general instruction and “hoping all the kids get it,” as he said.
Question 2: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
Perceptions are critical for anyone and any purpose, but especially so when attempting a
paradigm shift such as the integration of technology into the classroom and instructional
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

74

practices of teachers not trained or predisposed for such. Therefore, the thematic group believed
it critical to take advantage of the qualitative format and sought to gather data surrounding the
perceptions of teachers on the impact of technology on both teaching and learning.
General perceptions. The anonymous staff surveys completed before the researcher’s
fieldwork reflected an almost unanimous belief that technology has had some positive impact on
both teaching and learning. When asked if staff believed technology has positive impacted the
quality of their instruction, eight responded “absolutely,” two with “for the most part,” and one
said “somewhat.”
Table 7

Not
at
all

0%

Somewhat

9%

For
the

most
part

18%

Absolutely

73%

Q10: I believe that technology has positively impacted
the quality of my instruction.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

75

When asked how technology has impacted teaching overall, respondents were again positive in
their responses. Eight responded technology had “significantly enhanced” teaching, and three
responded it “has somewhat approved” teaching in the classroom.
Table 8

Has
proved

subversive
to
the

abiliKes
and

missions
of

teachers

0%

Has
had
a
slight

impact
on
the

teaching
profession

0%

Has
somewhat

improved
teachers'

ability
to
instruct

and
manage

27%

Significantly

enhanced
teaching

73%

Q19: Technology has impacted teaching in what way?
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

76

Engagement and motivation. A key area of interest for the researcher and thematic
group was around teachers’ perceptions on the impact of technology on student creativity and on
engagement and motivation. Previous research has pointed to this being an important role with
the integration of technology and on its long-term success in implementation for those schools
and staff members proving skeptical or resistant. In the survey, staff members were asked if they
believed that technology positively impacts student creativity, and three replied “absolutely,” six
replied “for the most part,” and two replied “somewhat.”
Table 9

Not
at
all

0%

Somewhat

18%

For
the
most
part

55%

Absolutely

27%

Q15: I believe that technology positively impacts student
creativity.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

77

Staff members were then asked whether they believed technology integration requires student
collaboration. Again responses were varied, with four replying “absolutely,” five “for the most
part,” and two with “somewhat.”
Table 10

Not
at
all

0%

Somewhat

18%

For
the
most
part

46%

Absolutely

36%

Q16: I believe that technology integration requires
student collaboration.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

78

When asked if technology was relevant for both student engagement and achievement,
respondents were again positive in their beliefs as four stated “absolutely,” five said “for the
most part,” and two replied “somewhat.”
Table 11

Of the 11 classroom observations completed by the researcher, 9 of them had student populations
visibly engaged – working productively and undistracted – in the lessons and activities. Of the
two classrooms with students not engaged – students not on task, distracted by social media, etc.
– one of the teachers was attempting to lead an interpersonal discussion extensive in length, and
the other had one of the larger classrooms the researcher had seen at RHS with 30 students.
Of those classrooms with engaged student populations, 8 of the 9 had lesson plans
involving technology usage. These varied greatly in the actual technology being used, from one
class with students independently completing reflections through Echo while being allowed to
listen to music, to another class seeing its students present documentaries that small groups of
them had filmed concerning various passions of theirs. Two of the classrooms observed were
Not
at
all

0%

Somewhat

18%

For
the
most
part

46%

Absolutely

36%

Q17: I believe that technology is relevant for both
student engagement and student achievement.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

79

using web- and app-based software to quiz their students in real-time, with one of these being
conducted in an interactive and competition-based environment that had the children on their
feet, laughing, and visibly engaged. In this specific classroom the noise level would more than
likely have been prohibitive to most, but in this case the students were invested in the activity
and the teacher was able to use the game to gauge areas of content remediation the students
might need from their previous or current lessons. In another classroom the teacher had a large
classroom of 28 students, but the various groups were all working in an engaged and
collaborative atmosphere on various projects they were all in various stages of completing –
either a short film which students would be submitting to an internationally renowned local film
festival, a Photoshop project in which students were taking famous pieces of art and
manipulating to represent surrealism, or a career exploration exercise the guidance counselor had
requested of the students. Most persons with teaching experience would be reluctant to offer this
large of group this level of freedom, but the researcher checked in on each group of students and
all of them were on task with each project they had selected.
Multiple teachers discussed the fact that allowing students to bring their “digital” self to
school creates a relevance for them that is both engaging and motivating. Two specific teachers
described this process as creating a “seamless” education for these students. One veteran
teacher, who also served in a support role for the campus, stated that teachers must “meet
students where they’re at” in order to create this seamlessness for them. She stated, “teachers
have to ask students what technology they’re using and then try to incorporate [these] into their
classroom.” As an example, she explained how her current students have little to do with
Facebook since they view it as something their parents would use. However, they almost all use
Twitter in their personal lives. Therefore, this teacher uses Twitter (in addition to Echo) to
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

80

communicate resources and assignments to her students, despite the fact she chooses Facebook
for her personal life. Yet, just four years ago she “couldn’t keep her students off of Facebook
and it was a huge distraction.” Two other teachers agreed with this assessment in different ways.
One teacher in her first year at RHS explained many teachers can “get hung up on the traditional
or on their personal preferences” and then fail to take into consideration what would be
motivating or engaging for the students. Another teacher, this one a four-year veteran of RHS
and national tech liaison for the National Writing Project, stated a belief that “it’s detrimental to
students to tell them to leave their various personalities at home.” She further explained having
classrooms with extensive technology creates opportunities for teachers to embrace these student
personas, that allowing a student with a strong YouTube presence to create original work in this
capacity both allows the teacher an opportunity to better get to know the talents of the student as
well as affording the student an opportunity to display content mastery in a way that is accessible
for them. She explained how she recently discovered one of her students had a strong passion
for the computer game “MineCraft,” and during this time the students were reading “Harrison
Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut. Instead of requiring a more traditional assignment, the teacher
instead allowed the student to reconstruct a scene from the novella and then walk the rest of the
class through his interpretation.
In their interview one of the administrators had stated a belief concerning student
engagement and technology that is worth noting. The administrator explained students are wise
to the world and are aware of what is potentially available for them to work with, resource-wise.
Students are immersed in a digital culture outside of school, so for them to leave that self and
that capability behind when coming to school is a discouragement. However, when they see
their school investing in their education and in their personal future by granting access to
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

81

technologies they will need for college and beyond, this creates a personal motivation for these
students. As he explained, “students need to know that their education has value, and when they
see you investing in their education this creates that value.”
Collaboration. One recurring idea throughout collected data was a strong belief in
technology’s impact on creating collaborative opportunities between both staff to student and
student-to-student relationships, and how this collaboration has created unique learning
opportunities in the RHS environment. In the surveys, staff stated a strong belief the technology
integration requires student collaboration, with four stating “absolutely” and five saying “for the
most part.”
Table 12

The idea of collaboration being critical for RHS’s learning environment came up during
each and every interview the researcher conducted, teachers or administration. One staff
member explained most students express mastery of content through collaborative efforts, such
as group presentations, writing assignments, or multimedia presentations. During an observation
Not
at
all

0%

Somewhat

18%

For
the
most
part

46%

Absolutely

36%

Question 16: I believe that technology integration
requires student collaboration.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

82

of this classroom, the researcher was able to see example assignments from this teacher of
students working together in groups to create movie trailers for persons and events key to World
War II. Additionally, three teachers noted during their interviews that technology has allowed
them to create lessons plans for students where they can collaborate outside of “normal”
classroom hours, opening up greater opportunities for these teachers both within the classroom
and without it. One teacher noted how in her World Studies course she often extends this
collaborative phenomenon even further to include learners outside of RHS and around the world
in general. While discussing a series of current events, this particular teacher had her students
work together on an assignment that would allow them to use their Macbooks and Skype
software to collaborate with learners from the inner city of Philadelphia. She believed this
critical for instructional purposes, as her students exist within “this affluent [local] bubble” and
having the opportunity to directly interact with their peers who are not privileged and struggle in
the day to day would bring a far greater context for learning than she could provide through
traditional handouts and conversations.
Another staff member stated a belief that she would actually be incapable of completing
her instructional objectives without the ability to remotely collaborate with her students. This
specific teacher is responsible for guiding Seniors through their capstone projects and does not
have a traditional class time scheduled. Therefore, she relies almost entirely on Gmail, Google
Docs, and Skype to interact with her students. She stated that “[technology] is just so beneficial
and it makes your life easier through coordinating student work, grading and providing feedback,
and sharing information and collaborating with the students.” She then reflected, “[It’s] so
strange to look back and wonder, how did I every stay in touch with any of my teachers when I
was in school?”
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

83

Technology has allowed educators and students to “transcend the four walls of the
classroom,” as one interviewed teacher phrased this phenomenon. The traditional teacher-
centered model finds the teacher as the keeper of knowledge and class time reserved for direct
instruction or classroom activities, and this system relies heavily upon homework as the primary
tool for either practicing new knowledge or completing work to display mastery of new content.
However, technology has allowed a collaborative environment to grow at RHS that sees students
working on a project together via Google Docs at anytime of the day or at any location, with the
teacher maintaining the capability of reviewing work and individual student contributions. One
teacher explained this to the researcher as a form of “authentic” collaboration, noting that when
students are working in groups in his classroom it has proven difficult for him to join in and
observe them in action without disrupting the flow or energy of the session. However, via Echo
and Google Docs he can “go in and see what they’re working on in real-time and I can see how
things are progressing without disrupting the group dynamic so much.” This is the same
elimination of time and space as barriers for learning just previously discussed with the Senior
capstone projects, and two other teachers cited in interviews this ability to work meaningfully
outside the four walls of the classroom as a critically important positive for the role of
technology in education.
Technology streamlines a teacher’s life – to an extent. According to the data,
technology has streamlined efforts for RHS teachers in many impactful ways, but not necessarily
in decreasing their overall workload. One of the assistant directors explained how technology
has allowed RHS teachers to truly transition into the role of facilitators. It has allowed them to
make this shift by focusing on conducting the “Know / Need to Know” process with students and
then to concentrate efforts on providing resources, adding instruction where needed, and then
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

84

ensuring groups are on task and meeting deadlines. He stated a belief that technology has
created time and energy for teachers to focus on “the small things that don’t take much time but
have greater impact on student learning.” One teacher discussed how technology has allowed
her to shift from being the center of all knowledge in the classroom, of how the internet and its
many resources has “allowed kids to get the knowledge they need for the tasks at hand, and this
allows me to find those opportunities to share what’s needed to get them to dig deeper into the
content I want them to.” Other teachers explained how technology has allowed them to “flip”
their classrooms by creating databases of instructional videos and web links which has allowed
them more time for deeper learning in the classroom, and another stated technology has freed her
from being a control freak in the classroom and helped her to understand “[she] doesn’t have to
be the first resource they turn to… creating self-directed learners is an important task for me
getting them ready for college.” This last teacher is in her first year at RHS after working in the
traditional model for a number of years, and she said each day she is learning more ways to use
technology to do the repetitive and smaller tasks. In turn, this has created more time to do
meaningful activities such as finding more resources for her students or identifying additional
software or apps that can help her learners with content and media production.
Question 3: In what ways does the school climate support the integration of
technology? Where does the leadership come from?
RHS’s efforts at integrating technology in a meaningful way begin with its school
climate. First, there has been considerable intention put into the physical layout and technology
infrastructure for the campus. Second, a culture has been created on the campus where
technology has become a “way of life” for the staff and students rather than something that must
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

85

be consciously focused upon. Last, the leadership teams for both the district and the school site
have put significant effort into empowering all campus stakeholders.
Logistics. As one teacher stated, “without the necessary tools and space we wouldn’t be
able to use the technology very much or very [well].” The campus is physically designed in a
way that promotes both technology usage and student collaboration. For instance, when the
researcher first set foot on the campus he was met by a large common area with student work
centers, media:scapes, and a video wall running videos of student products. In addition, with
only a single exception the classrooms had seating arrangements with students working in small
groups of 4-6.
The school has a scheduling system that lends itself to the paradigm shift needed for a
PBL and a tech-rich environment to grow amongst the students. As explained earlier in the
chapter, the school runs on a modules system with each 20 minutes in length. Where the
approach differs though is in the handling of tardiness and overall student flow. The school
climate is one focused on student agency, therefore there are no immediate repercussions for
students being late to class as would occur in a traditional environment. Rather, the focus is
placed on the student missing work and corresponding responsibilities, and the impetus is placed
on them to use resourcefulness in recovering. Also, Wednesdays are structured as networking
days, with the first two hours of the morning being utilized for students to work in their various
groups. With multiple classes and multiple PBL assignments, students might be working in as
many as 4-6 groups at one time.
One assistant director discussed during their interview how one of the most critical
elements of any campus’s plan for technology integration must be a “robust wireless network.”
The network must be capable of handling thousands of devices, as even with RHS’s student and
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

86

staff population coming in at approximately 450 persons on any given school day, between
smartphones, tablets, the Macbooks, and other forms of tech there might be as many as 1,000
devices pulling on the site’s wireless network. This administrator had begun as a teacher with
RHS, and he stated there is “no worse experience for a teacher than to have spent a large chunk
of time planning this tech-heavy lesson, only for the wireless [or other tech] to go buggy on
you.” He explained to the researcher how many new teachers at RHS can potentially get jaded
by technology after this occurs a handful of times in their first year.
Culture – general. Just as intent was placed on the physical environment, so too has
intent been given to the cultural development of RHS. Researcher and theorist Clayton
Christensen (2010) discusses culture in numerous ways, such as it being culture that determines
how a group addresses different types of problems and, thus, determines the priority given to
these different types of problems. Along these lines, RHS has created a common language
amongst its staff and students in which technology is incorporated as a natural part of their PBL
environment, and the staff discussed numerous times with the researcher the shift in perception
they have taken to adapt their class management and philosophies to coincide with the level of
adoption they have made with technology.
The staff of RHS uses a unique language to address different aspects of their school
environment, from its structure to the management of their students. For example, language
more often associated with the business world has been incorporated into their daily routine. 9
th

Grade students are typically known as freshmen in a traditional school setting. However, here at
RHS they are known as “rookies.” Instead of periods for class time, the school has “modules”
that combine to form the times in which students should be in a designated place. In terms of
class management, all teachers and administrators have the same language for addressing
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

87

expected behavior with technology, such as “courtesy mode” for times when students close their
laptops or put away personal technology due to their attention being needed elsewhere.
Multiple staff members also discussed the necessity for RHS teachers to let go of
traditional beliefs concerning classroom management. One assistant director explained to the
researcher that with technology and student collaboration comes increases in levels of noise and
general levels of “chaos.” He offered the example of students finding new information while
completing collaborative research, and then being excited about sharing this content with their
peers. He explained, “to impede this process is to impede the learning process.” The researcher
saw this shift in what is perceived as classroom management at play in numerous classrooms.
One teacher had her students completing their post-project reflections, and while doing so the
students were listening to music, some had headphones on, and other students were up and
moving about the classroom. While this type of behavior almost certainly would be frowned
upon in a more traditional environment, at RHS this was the observed norm.
Culture – technology is not a learner outcome. When asked about RHS’s learner
outcomes, all staff discussed how there is no need for technology to be a desired outcome in and
of itself. Instead the four outcomes that are established – agency, collaboration, communication,
knowledge and thinking – are all supported by, and even made possible to some extent, by
technology. The principal offered an analogy during her interview that captured much of the
staff’s thoughts.
Technology is the knife that spreads the butter on the bread for us, because it is such an
important function in the end for us, in the end product we’re going for. We don’t really
care whether the knife is plastic, metal, butter, steak, so long as we get the end product
that we’re looking for.

The principal would go on to explain that digital literacy was a learner outcome when RHS first
began five years ago, but after the third school year it was dropped. Both the principal and an
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

88

assistant director discussed how the process occurred in their interviews, and how this was a
collaborative decision. As part of the international network, each year the entire staff completes
a report card for the campus on perceptions of efforts, successes, concerns, and more. The
leadership team then uses this feedback for a larger discussion with the staff in setting plans and
strategies for the next year. During these meetings the staff generates learner outcomes for the
next year. The assistant director explained how during this series of discussions the staff –
almost as a whole – stated a belief technology was “just what our kids did” and “was ingrained in
structures and practices.” When considering all 11 staff members interviewed echoed the belief
that technology underpins the four current learner outcomes, the idea that technology is just
ingrained in the structures and practices of RHS seems to still be going strong.
Yet, both RHS and the Tipton ISD (TISD) acknowledge it is still critical that processes
remain in place to ensure learners are developing tech literacy. RHS utilizes a required course
for freshmen (rookies) called Digital Portfolio to expose these students new to the RHS
environment in all things ICT, from Adobe and Apple software to the cultural norms of the
campus such as common language and practices they will need to know. While technology
might not be a campus-wide learner outcome, in these courses for new students it is a primary
objective to be mastered. At the district level TISD currently has a tech literacy course required
for all 7
th
grade students in the district, and it is also in the process of creating additional tech
literacy requirements for all district students. The principal acknowledged in her interview that
this district focus on digital literacy allows RHS to keep technology in the background as a
learner outcome, and she does believe this further allows the focus on technology at the campus
level to remain a part of the learning process rather than a purpose for it.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

89

The four learner outcomes currently in place at RHS are collaboration, communication,
knowledge and thinking, and agency. During their interviews all 11 staff members discussed in
some capacity how technology positively supports efforts at achieving all four of these learner
outcomes. With collaboration, multiple teachers referenced how technology creates additional
opportunities for student collaboration by eliminating space and time barriers. No longer do
teachers have to plan for learning and teaching opportunities only within class times and the four
walls of the classroom. Rather, technology has allowed them to provide additional learning
opportunities through the always-accessible Echo portal, and also to know students have the
capable to interact with each other and their shared products at any time of any day.
Additionally, two teachers discussed at great length how technology has also revolutionized their
perspectives on student-teacher collaboration. One teacher stated:
No longer do I have to schedule teacher-student time to review work or ask questions, but
now I can just check their Google Doc at anytime and see how their doing and send them
an email if I have a question.

The other teacher explained how technology has made it possible for her to not even have a
scheduled class time for her Seniors, as she’s been able to help them through their Capstone
projects solely through technological means such as email, Google Docs and Hangouts. During
the week the researcher was on campus he also observed the collaborative capabilities of the
RHS environment. Perhaps the most significant example witnessed was the teachers of a World
Studies course rolling out a new project to the students where they would be conducting a mock
trial, and not just with each other but with another World Studies class. In a traditional
environment the students would have to schedule time after school to work in person with one
another, but through Echo, Google Docs and Hangouts the students would be able to collaborate
interactively with one another at anytime of any day. With Google Docs, the students would
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

90

even have the ability to contribute to the project at their convenience rather than having to figure
out a time that worked for everyone’s schedule.
Over half of the staff members discussed in interviews how technology supports the
communications learner outcome. RHS does focus on both oral and written aspects of
communications with this objective. Less mentioned and observed between the two was the oral
component, but yet it was present. One assistant director explained “technology is the means by
which our products are created,” and most often these are either presentations or multimedia
projects involving oral communication. One observation saw film students presenting their
documentary projects to their classmates, and these films contained heavy amounts narration
throughout. Yet, most of the conversations during interviews as well as observed data
centralized around the relationship between technology and written communication. As one
teacher explained, “because we promote a professional environment we expect all
communication to be professional, even if it’s a quick email to the teacher it should contain a
hello and a thank you just like you would write to your boss.”
Knowledge and thinking was the least mentioned of learner outcomes and their
relationship with technology. However, almost all staff discussed during their interviews in
some capacity how technology has allowed their students to engage deeper with the material,
through either its ability to create near limitless access to content or through the necessity of
teachers to teach students how to be responsible consumers of this near limitless access.
Additionally, one teacher explained how she has been working with her students on taking
advantage of the many resources and differences RHS has with traditional high school
environments. For example, RHS provides its students with digital textbooks instead of physical
ones. While many teachers and students might be turned off by this difference and the shift in
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

91

approach it necessitates, she is pushing them to become experts in these differences and the
many advantages – direct links to online videos and quizzes, ability to annotate and highlight the
texts and then view these notes alone, etc. – the digital texts allow for learning new content.
Another teacher explained to the researcher how RHS has so many resources that sometimes the
students – and even staff – can forget many of them. She has been working with her seniors on
taking advantage of RHS’s access to the GALE online library of journals and periodicals, and
how this will be a critical skill for their success in college and beyond.
Technology and its relationship with agency brought the greatest amount of direct
conversation, as all interviewees quickly gravitated in its direction when asked about RHS’s
learner outcomes. One of the most heavily discussed problems with technology with RHS staff
revolves around the idea of technology as a distraction for students, and all staff relate efforts at
developing agency with students as the counter to this problem. Almost all staff members
defined agency in terms of responsible usage. However, many of the conversations with staff
ran much deeper than this general layer. During his interview, one teacher explained:
The technology is there whether we’re using it in school or not and kids are going to use
it regardless, so the challenge for us as teachers and society as a whole is helping them to
learn they can use it for good purposes or as a benefit for their education.

Another aspect of the RHS definition for agency involves establishing and maintaining a growth
mindset, and this was captured eloquently by the technology liaison who explained “we always
want our students maintaining a growth mindset, through what tech they’re using, [and always
asking] is this appropriate or should I be seeking out other means?”
Empowering all stakeholders as leaders. One common thread amongst all
conversations with both teachers and administrators was the principle of empowering all
stakeholders in the RHS family, including students, parents and community members, teachers,
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

92

as well as the traditional site leaders. Technology affords numerous opportunities for this
empowerment, as discussed in various interviews and observed by the researcher.
During their interviews, six different staff members discussed RHS’s approach to usage
of Macbooks as critical for development of its professional environment with its students. Both
teachers and students have full administrative privileges for their laptops, giving them the power
to download and install any free software from the Internet. Students and their parents do have
to sign responsible usage agreements and abide by the “Parent & Learner Laptop Handbook,”
and these do outline the expectation that all software downloads will be for the completion of
schoolwork. One assistant director cited a recent example where one student found a program
that streamlined the script writing process, and within weeks it had been put to wide use
throughout the English department. Another administrator stated their belief that teachers learn
as much from students about various technologies as they do from organized professional
development activities. During interviews with the researcher, each staff member was asked
what advice – in general, covering any topic – they would give another school about to embark
on technology integration. Two administrators and one teacher talked at length of the necessity
for incorporating students into the decision-making process for technology purchases, utilizing
students for the development of professional development plans for teachers, and the use of
students as technology support teams for teachers during day-to-day activities. During his week
on campus the researcher did not see evidence of student technology teams in action.
The researcher observed and heard on many occasions from various staff the need to
ensure both the parents of RHS students and the general public understand what it is the school is
attempting to achieve with technology and how they are attempting to reach these objectives.
One administrator described how most of the general public comes to RHS either believing
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

93

technology to be “this silver bullet” that addresses any potential need from an educator or
learner, or they come to the campus expecting to see students “literally plugged into computers.”
To address these misconceptions the school offers information sessions and tours to the public
every Tuesday and Thursday morning in two-hour blocks. The principal expressed how critical
it is to reach members of the community and properly educate them, as the school does rely on
public donations as a key source of funding for continued purchases of technology.
Much research does point to teachers as the most critical component of any school’s
integration of technology, and there was much data gathered from RHS that confirmed the
importance of empowering staff through both cultural and professional learning practices. Both
teachers and administrators cited efforts made by the administrative team to make RHS’s staff
professional development activities a collaborative process. One key effort made in this area is
the addition of a teacher as the campus’s integration specialist and member of the site
administrative team. Another example of collaborative efforts include the opportunity to
complete anonymous “school report cards,” whose feedback in turn drive efforts at strategic
planning for the campus as well as revision of learner outcomes for the next school year. For
example, during the principal’s interview she explained how instructional scaffolding was
determined as the central focus for professional learning efforts for this school year due to
feedback from last year’s anonymous survey instruments. Three teachers stated during
interviews that the administrative team puts significant effort into motivating teachers to be
innovative and to try new things, and this in turn has inspired them to be more willing to take
risks in their classrooms. Both the principal and the tech liaison discussed this at length during
their interviews, of these efforts to create a risk-free environment where teachers are willing to
try new things and fail. One teacher cited an example of these efforts during his interview, in
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

94

how all teachers are expected to participate weekly in “critical friends” – an exercise where
teachers share upcoming projects they are planning and solicit feedback on how to potentially
improve these lessons. He discussed how he came to his critical friends group and admitted he
was struggling with his students completing their vocabulary lessons. His peers recommended
pushing his students to try and create conceptual meaning for the terms through Internet memes,
creating GIFs online, or other technological means. He followed through on their advice and
reported to the researcher increases in both student engagement with vocabulary exercises as
well as increased performance on assessments.
A supportive district office. A majority of staff discussed at some point during their
interviews the key role the district office has played in RHS’s technology integration efforts.
Four different staff members discussed their perception of the central office as a collaborative
partner in figuring out how best to promote positive instructional practices around technology.
One assistant director explained, “if we come to them for something it’s never just a simple no,
but instead a collaborative process in figuring out how to get to yes.” One teacher stated, “our
district has never made an excuse for why we can’t do something, [but] instead it’s always been
a matter of if this is important then let’s figure out a way to do it.” The principal illustrated for
the researcher how six years ago the district made a commitment to integrating technology, and
since then has revamped its learner outcomes, its use of tech literacy courses for its students, its
approach to professional learning, and its ICT acquisition policies. In terms of direct support for
RHS, the district has designated a technology support specialist who works together with the
staff of RHS to ensure their technology needs are met and/or supported. Additionally, the
district has agreed to match all funds raised at the school-level for technology purchases, in
addition to purchasing all Macbooks for staff and students.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

95

Discussion of Conceptual Framework and Themes from Data
Discussion of the Conceptual Framework
TPACK. Koehler and Mishra (2009) created the TPACK model in order to represent the
dynamic relationships involved when lesson planning for the integration of technology. Their
model embraced the belief that there was no one correct way to bring technology into the
classroom due to factors such as the rapid pace of tech evolution, the different needs that can be
served from the expansive field of technology, and the great breadth and ever-expanding
spectrum of technology tools. Both Koehler and Mishra (2009) and later Pamuk (2012)
concluded no level of content nor technological expertise would compensate for a lack of
pedagogical knowledge. To this end, when introducing and defining the TPACK model Koehler
and Mishra (2009) outlined the planning process as beginning with the identification of content
objectives, then the selection of the pedagogical methods for instruction, and then concluding
with a determination of what technology tools could best increase accessibility for targeted
content and pedagogy.
Notably, the researcher gathered no firsthand knowledge of TPACK from RHS staff,
from any of the research instruments. However, the data gathered depicts a program in
alignment with the TPACK model as visible through its practices and beliefs. All 11 staff
members who were interviewed expressed a personal belief that technology should never be the
objective of a lesson, but rather a component of the overall plan. They stated – again
unanimously – the tech that is being selected in the planning process should be chosen for its
ability to enhance a lesson, or to offer a meaningful learning opportunity that otherwise would
not have existed without the technology. With regards to the pedagogical component of
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

96

TPACK, RHS is a problem-based learning environment. Staff describe the standard lesson
planning process as beginning with identification of content objectives in conjunction with
learner outcomes, then the facilitator identifies the problem to be solved, develops learner
rubrics, compiles necessary researcher tools and/or resources databases, and then determines if
specific hardware or software is needed (such as Adobe Photoshop). Oftentimes, however, the
technology component is left open for students, such as allowing English students to explore
different screenwriting programs for a film trailer project in history class.
One technology integration model that was discussed amongst RHS staff and often used
as a professional learning tool is the SAMR model. This instrument is capable of being used as
both a planning tool as well as an evaluative instrument. It categorizes tech integration into four
levels. The first is substitution (S), where technology replaces a task that existed prior to the
technology, such as worksheets. Second is augmentation (A) and in this stage the technology is
being used to perform common students tasks, potentially with some enhancement such as
completing a quiz online. The next two stages see technology move from simple classroom
enhancer to potentially proving transformative for student learning. The third level is
modification (M). Technology is allowing students to take traditional assignments such as
essays and complete the same content or objectives with a new angle, such as a turning the essay
into a recorded song or a spoken word to be played for an audience. The highest level of tech
integration in the SAMR model is redefinition (R), and here technology creates previously
nonexistent learning opportunities and methods for expressing mastery. In this level students are
creating media such as online videos, infographics for presentations, and more. The principal
explained during her interview that SAMR is used during co-planning exercises as well as
classroom observations to determine whether technology is being used as a lower-level
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

97

substitution or enhancement in the classroom, or if it is actually being utilized in transformative
fashion. From this conversation it appears SAMR is serving as a guide for the technology
consideration stage of TPACK, especially when considering state standards and learner
outcomes are largely driving content decisions for RHS teachers, and that RHS being a PBL
learning environment dictates most pedagogical choices for the school’s staff.
Themes
Technology is part of the learning process and not the end product. Technology is
ubiquitous at RHS, but so too is the belief amongst staff and students that technology is not some
special add-on to their days and lessons. Rather, these professionals and adolescents believe
technology is simply ingrained in what the school is already doing with its PBL-based
instructional model and its efforts into fostering a collaborative work environment. As the
principal so eloquently analogized, technology is simply “the knife by which we spread our
butter.” No matter what knife is ultimately used, the desired learner outcomes in this analogy are
the contents of the sandwich, not the tools used to have made it.
Throughout his time on the campus the researcher never witnessed any activity, formally
or informally, being conducted where the technology present was the purpose of the activity. At
all witnessed times, there was most often some technology present during the activity. But,
instead of serving as the purpose this tech created accessibility to content for learners,
differentiated either activities or content for students, managed the workflow of both student-led
projects and teacher-led activities, and so much more. In these activities teachers always made
mention of the fact that first consideration was given to the objectives they wanted the students
to achieve before considerations were made for what forms of technology to utilize. This
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

98

approach will be acknowledged during the TPACK discussion, but the complement is visible in
RHS.
As an instructional tool, technology was always discussed or observed as being central to
the activities that were being conducted, but were never the purposes of the activities themselves.
A key example witnessed by the researcher was a science classroom that was launching its next
unit project. The course was Forensic Science and the students had just finished a series of lab
exercises in which they had experimented with forensic tools such as a hair analysis exercise.
This new assignment had them breaking into teams in preparation for a mock trial exercise
where students would play the various roles within the courtroom, with the central purpose being
to utilize these newly gained tools to present evidence to the jury in an effort to either defend or
prosecute. Through their technology – Macbooks, online collaborative tools such as Google
Docs and Hangouts, their science equipment in the labs, websites to reference for research – the
student would be preparing for this mock trial, but the end product itself would be live in person
rather than online. By videotaping the mock trial the teacher would be able to go back and
review with the students and offer feedback, but this is the extent of the impact technology
would have upon this end product. Many would consider this lesson as an exemplary learning
experience, but throughout it technology is serving as an enhancement and never as the end
product. This evolution of technology from being the destination of the journey to more akin its
form of transportation, this has led RHS to removing tech literacy from one of its expected
learner outcomes for its entire program. It is not that technology is no longer a priority for the
staff or desired as such for its student, but rather due to the fact it supports the efforts of staff in
achieving what are currently established as learner outcomes for RHS students – collaboration,
communication, knowledge and thinking, and agency.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

99

As a critical piece of the learning process at RHS, technology has created accessibility for
its learners, and this in turn has allowed teachers greater diversity in student expression of
mastery. One example worth discussing in this situation was the one classroom the researcher
observed that was not using technology. In this classroom the students were conducting a mock
United Nations summit where students represented various countries around the globe and
presented on the status of their educational climate. Although each student had to present orally
during this exercise, each student had been responsible for conducting extensive research and
then creating infographics – themes handouts depicting statistics in a more narrative format, and
involving extensive use of graphic design software. This afforded those students who might be
reluctant public speakers another format for conveying key messages and winning diplomatic
support during the exercise. In addition to this observed exercise, the researcher witnessed other
classrooms with students creating videos, participating in educational games, creating online
content such as blogs and editing websites, and troubleshooting online marketing needs. In all of
these exercises students were able to work in learning capacities that would not be possible
through online pen and paper lessons. As one teacher expressed, when students are denied the
use of talents they have and cultivate outside of the school then it is wrong for their teachers to
expect anything other than academic disengagement.
Meaningful usage is high-level usage. One critical theme emerged from all data, no
matter the instrument used for gathering nor the role of the person, and this was the need to
ensure any form of technology usage was both purposeful and meaningful for the students. As
the researcher discussed in the earlier literature review, all too often the resources and focus of
educational or policy leaders are placed almost entirely upon the acquisition of technology rather
than the usage of the tech. Yet, simply placing an iPad in a student’s hand is not going to
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

100

prepare them for a future where their professors and/or supervisors will be expecting them create
new content, find new ways of completing tasks, or collaborating with other learners around the
world. As one RHS administrator explained, “you’re giving this extremely powerful laptop to
children and then walking away and trusting them to make good decisions, you’re literally
putting the world in their hands.” Technology must be used for high-level instructional
purposes, to create engaged citizens, and to practice self-regulation in order to achieve this holy
grail of meaningful usage.
Inevitably there will be some lower-level usage witnessed on any tech-heavy campus due
to the fact the technology is also being used for administrative purposes such as taking
attendance or maintaining a gradebook. In addition, lower-level usages with instruction and
assessment are to be expected at times on a campus immersed in technology. To expect
perfection is unrealistic. However, the researcher witnessed significant amounts of and gathered
much data on the high-level usage of technology with RHS students. As one teacher explained
in his interview, “the content and skills the students are learning are what’s important, otherwise
we would just be teaching them how to do Excel spreadsheets.” There is evidence of student
creation everywhere on the RHS campus, both in the classrooms and in the common areas. In
one classroom the teacher observed, there were student-created movie posters, digital
photographs, and 3D printed items. In the common areas the researcher found student exhibits
involving reversed color imaging, infographics concerning various countries around the world,
and commercial-size posters depicting scientific research conducted on various subjects. The
video wall was running continuously while the researcher was on campus, and many of these
times there were student-created products such as short films, presentations, and other content-
based multimedia.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

101

Students are coming to RHS with lives full of experiences with technology. However,
these interactions are versed in social media, gaming, and general media consumption – not
exactly skills related to education. Yet, these are students who spend upwards of 10 or more
hours a day “plugged into the network.” It is this unique challenge that today’s teachers are
facing in the classroom, in taking students fluent in technology and teaching them to rethink its
purposes. As one RHS teacher explained:
It’s very rare a kid comes in and doesn’t know how to work with our technology, but the
divide is between their belief they’re an expert in using technology when the reality is
they don’t know now to use it for academic purposes and with meaningfulness.

Another teacher explained that a central focus of technology usage in her classroom is around
giving her students a “toolkit for life,” where they have a conceptual understanding around
various genres of technology and how they can use these technologies to achieve personal and
professional goals.
Also of significance is the widespread belief among RHS staff that technology has
allowed the responsibility for learning to shift from the staff to the students. Almost all staff
mentioned this during their interviews, and the researcher witnessed it in action during many of
his observations. One teacher new to RHS this year discussed “letting go of control” and
allowing her students to determine methods for constructing new toy products in ways indicative
of their knowledge – not hers. Another teacher, this one a veteran of RHS, described it as
creating a resource center for her class on Echo where every resource the students could
potentially need would be located, providing the students with the grading rubric and project
outline, and then turning them loose to explore and create. The researcher observed one
classroom where the teachers were introducing a new unit project to the students and a similar
format was being utilized. The teachers held a brief class discussion on the parameters of the
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

102

project, walked the students through the rubric to ensure that everyone understood expectations
for the assignment, covered the database of resources they had created for the students while
being sure to connect certain resources with corresponding parts of the project, and then
outlining with the students expected dates of completion for each stage of the project. The
researcher asked one of these co-teachers how heavy of a role they would play in the completion
of the assignment moving forward, and the teacher explained it would depend on each individual
group’s needs. Some of students or groups might require extensive support, he said, while others
would work almost entirely independently. He also discussed the fact each of the smaller
assessment activities along the project’s way would allow the teachers to make sure each group
was on task and mastering the content, and these would inform the teachers of any adjustments
they might need.
Technology… it’s not all good. With technology integration arises additional concerns
and challenges. For many teachers, the challenges argument with technology integration begins
and ends with its ability to distract students. While most staff members at RHS stated a belief
the school has done well in this battle by using tactics such as common language and practices,
the reality remains that many of these students have relationships with their smart devices and
laptops that is at times obsessive. This phenomenon adds a whole new layer on the role of the
teacher, as they must now place intent upon ensuring interpersonal reactions for students in order
to pull them out of their virtual worlds, create natural opportunities for students to find value in
non-tech devices such as traditional art supplies or traditional novel texts.
In speaking of new roles for teachers in tech-heavy schools such as RHS, integrating
technology into the classrooms can create as many problems as it poses answers. One teacher
new to RHS this year has found innovative opportunities for his students to connect to healthcare
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

103

professionals, and in turn gain both professional advice for their own careers in addition to
guidance on their various projects they’re working on in biology. These sound the actions of a
teacher fluent in tech integration. However, this same teacher is “struggling greatly” to master
Echo, the most essential framework for a RHS staff member to run their classrooms. Another
challenge in this area observed by the researcher was the reality that incorporating technology
into lessons adds another layer of differentiation to be considered by the teacher. In a traditional
classroom a teacher already faces the challenge of making the content and assignments
accessible for all learners, no matter their prior content knowledge nor specific learner needs. In
reality, this alone can prove a Sisyphean task for any teacher anywhere. However, with
technology comes the need to now also have to consider the individual fluency level for each of
their learners with regards to the technology that will be called upon for usage in this lesson – a
third level of scaffolding now required.
Also critical to efforts at integrating technology is the fact it is evolving at a pace
impossible for any school to maintain. One administrator discussed how both the staff and
students expressed an interest in purchasing bloggies – small cameras designed to streamline the
video blogging process. RHS has a rigorous system for these purchase requests involving
multiple stakeholder discussions, an extensive review process, and central office oversight. It
was determined the bloggies would be a worthwhile purchase and approximately 100 of them
were procured. However, within the next couple of school years the bloggies were barely used,
as students’ smartphones had advanced in camera technologies beyond the standalone bloggies.
One of the school’s technology support personnel explained how RHS was doing as well as any
school could hope to do in keeping up with technology, but even such all of their iPads were
multiple generations behind in model and were becoming obsolete with each new operating
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

104

system Apple released. She explained what the school could best hope to do was “keep[ing]
technology in their hands that is at least comparable to what they’re using outside of school, to
keep everything as seamless as possible.” Yet, she does go on to lament, “this is almost
impossible, as we just don’t have the money to keep up with advances being made almost daily
in the world of technology.”
The conversation concerning acquisition and evolution does beg the next conversation,
concerning the “cool” factor of technology and the havoc this can play with acquisition and with
classroom practices. This idea, that technology is attractive for the sake of it or even for its
potential, extends to all stakeholders – not just the students. For example, the principal explained
during her interview the media:scapes were a deliberate purchase. The conversation began with
the staff determining during a strategic planning exercise that a more collaborative environment
in the common space could help the school in achieving its learner outcomes. From here,
various persons were consulted and it was determined the media:scapes would be a purchase
which could achieve this collaborative goal, thus they were acquired. However, another of the
school administrators cited the media:scapes as a “bomb.” In her explanation they were
purchased more for the fact the staff members and leadership fell in love with them during the
research process. The administrator stated, “just because we think something is cool doesn’t
mean it’s going to address a learning need.” Additionally, one of the teachers stated this “cool
factor” extends to the software side of technology. He spoke of many students complaining to
him over the years of their frustration with staff members rolling a new app or website out to the
students that requires them to go through an extensive registration process, and then only to use
the app or a website for a single assignment and never to be seen again. Another of the staff
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

105

members stated his belief that RHS has proven “fast with trying new things but short with
attention span,” lending credence to the students’ complaints about single use of new tech.
Ironically, one idea discussed by a few different staff members is a misconception that
would not seem itself a negative, but is instead an uphill battle fought with perceptions from
community members – that technology is a silver bullet that addresses any imaginable student
need. These staff members discussed the fact that many in the community believe simply giving
a student a laptop makes them engaged, makes them better prepared for college, or just makes
them better learners in general. These are all common statements during the campus’s
information sessions and tours offered to the public every Tuesday and Thursday morning. In
general, the staff member stated persons holding these misperceptions are stunned when they
learn of the effort RHS staff must make in ensuring instruction for students continues to be
meaningful – despite the students having a laptop in their hands.
The researcher identified other various concerns during his time onsite. One potentially
significant negative raised by three teachers was the fact technology allows for the students
masking content regurgitation in place of content mastery. Meaning, with technology students
have the ability to find loads of content, jazz this content up through various software, and then
present this restated content in their presentation as newly acquired knowledge. However, this is
simply the student restating the knowledge instead of processing the knowledge, evaluating the
knowledge, and then constructing new content through the learning of this knowledge. Other
teachers discussed a concern for technology devaluing of traditional forms of learning, such as
traditional texts and interpersonal conversations. While the researcher did not witness any direct
evidence of this phenomenon, the conviction with which these staff members discussed the topic
in various ways was telling. Other staff members expressed a concern for the ways in which
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

106

technology usage can promote multitasking over singular focus. The researcher witnessed this
during many of his observations. Oftentimes it was not a level of multitasking that would raise
significant concern, but when access if ubiquitous it is not as evident to school staff when
students are checking their text/iMessages on their Macbook when doing so requires a simple
swapping of windows instead of necessitating taking out the technology when other students are
not doing such.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

107

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This case study was one of eleven completed as part of a thematic dissertation group.
The study’s purpose was to identify practices that have potentially promoted the integration of
technology into a high-performing school, as well as determine perceptions around the impact of
this technology on teaching and learning. The study sought to achieve its purposes through
qualitative data gathered from a secondary public school in Texas.
The study attempted to maximize validity and reliability through a triangulation of
multiple forms of data including document analysis, observations, a staff survey, and staff
interviews. All collected data was analyzed and interpreted through Creswell’s (2007) six-stage
process in order to interpret data and to determine emergent themes. The TPACK model was
used as a conceptual framework by which to evaluate efforts at tech integration, specifically in
the areas of planning and instruction.
The study’s findings will be analyzed and discussed in this chapter. Specific focus will
be placed upon the emergent themes and how they relate to RHS’s efforts at technology
integration and on its staff’s perceptions of technology’s impact on teaching and learning. The
chapter will conclude with implications for practice and recommendations for future research.
Analysis of Findings
Multiple themes and conclusions emerged from data collected from the interviews,
observations, staff survey, and document analysis. Themes that emerged from the data were as
follows: technology is part of the learning process and not the end product, meaningful usage is
high-level usage, and technology… it’s not all good.
This case study was unique in the fact the research site offered multiple identities, as
RHS is a public school, is part of an international network of technology-rich schools, is fully
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

108

dedicated to the problem-based learning model, and for the purposes of the thematic group was
the lone school site located outside of California. Yet, this uniqueness also posed challenges for
the researcher in determining any generalizable results from the research questions, beyond just
those normally existing with qualitative case studies. The school site is located in an affluent
school district, and this allows the school to take advantage of both significant funding through
the district for supporting its 1:1 Macbook initiative as well as creating additional purchasing
funds through its parent teacher organization and matching funds system. Additionally, while
being part of a national network does not impact tangible resources, it does allow the RHS staff
access to a vast database of resources for professional development resources and for
instructional support through lesson plans and online resources for both staff and students. One
of the greatest challenges in conducting PBL is the creation of projects and identification of
student resources and supplements, but RHS teachers are prevented from “reinventing the
wheel” through the network’s vast library of resources.
It is the PBL model that most stood out to the researcher during the research process as
enabling a meaningful technology-rich environment to foster at RHS. It has been widely
documented how this generation of students are consuming and creating unprecedented levels of
content and media online, and the PBL model fosters a seamless transition for today’s students
from their digital lives to their school lives. Students are posed with problems related to their
educational objectives, and then are using skills related to their digital lives to achieve their
course standards. It is this seamless transition created by the PBL model the researcher believes
most responsible for the “invisible” nature of technology at RHS, with technology existing as
part of the learning process rather than the objective itself.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

109

Implications for Practice
Today’s schools and districts are facing a crossroads as it pertains to technology
integration. Much of the educational field is lagging in both acquisition and instructional
assimilation of technology, and in the meantime technology is evolving at a pace that makes
remedying the situation all the more difficult. RHS’s experiences and perceptions of its efforts at
integrating technology do offer valuable lessons for other educators.
Acquisition. The acquisition stage of technology integration can consume much time,
energy, and other resources for educators. However, RHS’s experiences offer valuable insights
on the actual value of this focus. RHS has great purchasing power for technology and this is
reflected in not just the Macbooks all staff and students carry on the campus, but also in the
commercial and 3D printers, the media:scapes, the bloggies and other cameras, the iMacs, iPads,
and the many other forms of visible tech – and this does not even include the professional-grade
software available for staff and students. Yet, a pervasive concern amongst staff was the fact
even RHS is struggling to keep up with the evolutionary pace of the digital world. Staff
members discussed how this concern does pose a valuable opportunity for students to learn the
inherent value in overcoming outdated technology through resourcefulness.
An additional concern related to acquisition is the “shiny bauble” effect, the purchasing
of technology for its attractiveness rather than its real value to the learning process. RHS has
created a solid foundation of technology upon which it has layered additional technologies, but
other schools and districts will not necessarily have the wealth of resources RHS can pull from.
The researcher discussed this fact during informal opportunities over lunch or in passing with
RHS staff, and unanimously the staff stated a belief in the power of the 1:1 initiative of the
Macbooks as fundamental for RHS’s successes. Multiple staff discussed a confidence that all
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

110

other forms of technology could be removed – iPads, Smart boards, cameras, etc. – and the staff
and students would continue on with meaningful learning experiences made possible through the
Macbooks alone. Notably, this year the Tipton ISD has begun a 1:1 iPad initiative in a nearby
high school, and multiple RHS staff discussed their “dust-collecting” iPads as evidence the
district should have been more intentional with gathering resources to purchase Macbooks
instead of the iPads to offer greater learning opportunities for that high school’s students. The
teachers describe tablets and Chromebooks as limiting in capacity for meaningful learning
experiences – e.g. content creation, running intensive web-based software, etc.
PBL and tech integration. RHS has achieved an optimal learning environment with
technology, with the tech existing in the background of establishment of learning objectives and
instructional planning. As the principal explained, tech is the “knife that spreads our butter,”
thus moving into a transformative role on the campus rather than serving as an educational
objective. It is difficult for the researcher to quantify the role that PBL has played in the
development of this culture, but he does believe its responsibility significant. This constructivist
environment allows tech to seamlessly function as a tool by which problems are solved and
content is created, and this allows teachers to always keep the focus on the “knows/need to
knows” and end products the students are working towards rather than the technology the
students are using. This is achieved to an even greater degree by RHS staff often leaving
technology required for activities an open-ended opportunity for students during projects. In
comparison, traditional assignments lend themselves to greater prescription due to the formulaic
nature of incremental, unit-based coursework. The students and staff of RHS find this ability to
explore and create within the realm of technology both empowering and engaging.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

111

TPACK and SAMR. The thematic group selected the TPACK model as its conceptual
framework. The model allowed the researcher(s) the ability to determine planning and
instructional methods of teachers in integrating technology into their classrooms, with respect to
its placement against content and pedagogy. However, once on site the researcher discovered
there was scant, if any, knowledge of the TPACK model amongst RHS. However, the staff does
use the SAMR model to determine the effectiveness of technology used as an instructional tool,
from simple substitution to transformative redefinition. While the SAMR model can be used for
both instructional planning and as a tool for evaluation, it does not take into consideration the
dynamics between technology and content and pedagogy. Therefore, there does exist the
potential for these two instruments to be combined in complementary fashion for a staff
embarking on the journey of bringing technology into their classrooms. The TPACK model can
lay a foundation for thinking about the integration process and tech’s relationship with
preexisting knowledge of content and pedagogy, and then SAMR can be used for determining
the level of usage of the actual technology being implemented or that is planning to be used.
Technology and the four walls of the classroom. One idea raised by previous literature
and confirmed by multiple RHS staff members was the ability to technology to transcend the
four walls of the classroom. This capacity revolutionizes the concept of educational instruction
with respect to the teacher-centered model that has dominated teaching for centuries – perhaps
millennia. The rise of the Internet, Web 2.0, and smart devices has seen near limitless
knowledge made instantly accessible from anywhere and at anytime in the world. Knowledge is
no longer a commodity and teachers no longer have to be the center of the classroom. This in
turn has created the ability for the responsibility for learning to shift from the teachers to the
students. Teachers can now create databases of instructional videos, of web links to reference
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

112

sites, and of “experts” accessible through social media that allow students the ability to acquire
the knowledge needed to master content objectives. This is then coupled with collaborative
technologies that link students to both their teachers and each other with near 24/7 access. All of
the above culminates in the classroom and scheduled course times shifting from a focus on
delivery of content to a time for differentiated instruction for learners, facilitated lesson or
project management, presentation of evidence of mastery, and other high-level activities.
Recommendations for Future Research
A vast body of literature – both research-based and commentary – suggests the
educational field is at near crisis as it pertains to the integration of technology, specifically in the
great divide currently existing between the digital lives of students and 20
th
century practices still
pervasive in the today’s schools. The researcher sought to determine the perceived impact of
technology on teaching and learning, and in doing so the following issues emerged as potential
opportunities for further research:
1. RHS found success in its integration efforts in part due to the combination of its
innovative and empowering culture and its district’s affluence. It would be telling to identify a
school with a similar school culture but in a socioeconomically-challenged district.
2. RHS and the network speak highly of preparing their students for successfully
navigating work and careers in the 21
st
century and its digital world. However, many
universities are still highly traditional when it comes to instruction and assessment, specifically
with the teacher-centered model. It would be a great opportunity to conduct a comparison study
for RHS / the network’s students going to universities with innovative cultures versus those
attending universities with the more traditional instructional models.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

113

In Conclusion
Going into the fieldwork, the researcher had expected to find a campus driven by a rigid
integration policy. Instead, the researcher found a campus with a very intentional culture in
place that empowered its stakeholders to use technology as a means rather than as a purpose.
RHS’s culture is one based upon problem-based learning, the establishment of a risk-free zone
for experimentation, open collaboration between staff and students in dynamic relationships, and
the district office as a source of support rather than judge. Instead of “paint by number” policies
dictating technology usage, to borrow a term from digital lexicon the campus is more of an open
source format for tech integration. Although there might exist a number of downsides to a heavy
reliance upon technology, RHS – with its unique culture – finds itself in a situation where the
pros are far outweighing the cons. As other schools and leaders undertake their own integration
efforts, I hope they are able to find their own successes as well. For its readers, the researcher
can only wish this dissertation might have proven useful in these efforts.

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

114

References
Academic performance index. (n.d.). California Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/.
Adequate yearly progress. (2011). Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/adequate-yearly-progress/.
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 21
st
century: Skills for the future. The Clearing
House, 83, 39-43.
Blumenfeld, P. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the
learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), p. 369.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.
Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Christensen, C. (2010). How will you measure your life? Harvard Business Review, July/August
2010, p. 46-51.
Christova, A. & Mihai, A. (2011). Teaching European studies: A blended learning approach.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 6(4), 18 – 22.
Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. & Darby, J. (2008). Disruptive technologies, pedagogical
innovation: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception
of technology. Computers & Education, 50(2), 511-524.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

115

Cunningham, B. (2014). Digital natives and digital immigrants. Clearinghouse: Kansas Sate
University. http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Digital-
natives-and-digital-immigrants.aspx.
Deng, L. & Tavares, N.J. (2013). From Moodle to Facebook: Exploring students’ motivation and
experiences in online communities. Computers & Education, 68, 167-176.
Erstad, O. (2011). The learning lives of digital youth – beyond the formal and informal. Oxford
Review of Education, 38(1), 25-43.
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.
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurer, E. & Sendurer, P. (2012). Teacher
beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers and
Education, 59(2), 423-435.
Fischer, K. (2013). A college degree sorts applicants, but employers wish it meant more. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. https://chronicle.com/article/The-Employment-
Mismatch/137625/#id=overview.
Fleck, J. (2012). Blended learning and learning communities: Opportunities and challenges.
Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 398-411.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

116

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.
Framework for 21
st
century learning. (n.d.). Partnership for 21
st
Century Learning Skills.
Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework.
Geer, R. & Sweeney, T.A. (2012). Students’ voices about learning with technology. Journal of
Social Sciences, 8(2), 294-303.
Gonzalez, L. & Vodicka, D. (2012). Blended learning: A disruption that has found its time.
Leadership, 42(2), 8-10.
Harris, J.B. & Hofer, M.J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in
action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related
instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B. & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for
literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15-23.
Keengwe, J. & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering meaningful student learning through
constructivist pedagogy and technology integration. International Journal of Information
and Communication Technology Education, 7(4), 1-10.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G. & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop 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.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

117

Kumar, M.S. (2012). The new landscape for the innovative transformation of education. Social
Research, 79, (3), 619-630.
Lee, H., Linn, M.C., Varma, K. & Liu, O.L. (2010). How do technology-enhanced inquiry
science units impact classroom learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1),
71-90.
Lin, K., Wei, Y.C. & Hung, J.C. (2012). The effects of online interactive games on high school
students’ achievement and motivation in history learning. International Journal of
Distance Education Technologies, 10(4), 96-105.
Mama, M. & Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a typology of teacher beliefs and practices
concerning classroom use of ICT. Computers & Education, 68, 380-387.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. Jossey-
Bass: San Francisco.
No child left behind. (n.d.). United States Department of Education. Retrieved from www2.ed.-
gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
Paily, M.U. (2013). Creating constructivist learning environment: Role of “web 2.0” technology.
International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 9(1), 39-50.
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.
Pamuk, S. (2012). Understanding preservice teachers’ technology use through TPACK
framework. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 425-439.
Prestridge, S. (2012). The beliefs behind the teacher that influences their ICT practices.
Computers & Education, 58(1), 449-458.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

118

Promoting a positive school climate. (n.d.). Ontario Ministry of Education.
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/climate.html.
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.
Ryman, S., Burrell, L., Hardham, G., Richardson, B. & Ross, J. (2009). Creating and sustaining
online learning communities: Designing for transformative learning. International
Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 5(3), 32-45.
STAAR resources. (2014). Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/.
Texas education code, section 39.203: Campus distinction designations. (2013). Weblaws.org.
Retrieved from
http://www.weblaws.org/texas/laws/tex._educ._code_section_39.203_campus_distinction
_designations.
The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, Partnership for 21st Century
Skills & Society for Human Resource Management. (2006). Are They Really Ready to
Work? Employers' Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New
Entrants to the 21st Century U.S. Work Force.
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf
Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., Braak, J.V. & 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, 2541-2553.
Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills : learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass:
San Francisco.
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

119

Wetzel, K. & Marshall, S. (2011). TPACK goes to sixth grade: Lessons from a middle school
teacher in a high-technology-access classroom. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 28(2), 73-81.
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.
Xu, Y., Park, H. & Baek, Y. (2011). A new approach toward digital storytelling: An activity
focused on writing self-efficacy in a virtual learning environment. Educational
Technology & Society, 14(4), 181-191.
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).

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

120

Appendix A
Teacher Interview Protocol

RQ1: What technology is present at the school?

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

2. What kinds of personal experiences have provided the knowledge and motivation for you
to successfully integrate technology into your classroom?

3. What kinds of professional experiences have provided the knowledge and motivation for
you to successfully integrate technology into your classroom?

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

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

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

RQ2: How is technology used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?

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

2. What learning outcomes are associated with technology use and how might students
demonstrate mastery using technology?

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

RQ3: What is the impact of technology on teaching and learning? What are educators’
(teachers and administrators) general attitudes and beliefs about the use of technology in daily
classroom practice?

1. What are your general feelings about the role of technology in education?
Probing questions:
a. In preparing students for higher education?
b. In promoting career readiness?

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

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

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

5. How has technology enabled you to shift the responsibility of learning from you to your
students?
INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

121

Appendix B
Administrator Interview Protocol

RQ1: What technology is present at the school?

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

2. What kinds of personal experiences have provided the knowledge and motivation for you
to successfully integrate technology into your school?

3. What kinds of professional experiences have provided the knowledge and motivation for
you to successfully integrate technology into your school?

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

5. What challenges have you faced when integrating technology in your school?

RQ2: How is technology used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?

1. Who uses technology in your classrooms? For what purpose?

2. What learning outcomes are associated with technology use?

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

4. How do students demonstrate mastery using technology?

RQ3: What is the impact of technology on teaching and learning? What are educators’
(teachers and administrators) general attitudes and beliefs about the use of technology in daily
classroom practice?

1. What are your general feelings about the role of technology in education?
Probing questions:
a. In preparing students for higher education?
b. In promoting career readiness?

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

3. What advice would you give to teachers and administrators as they begin to integrate
technology?

4. In what ways has your professional development enabled teachers create student-centered
environment?

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

122

Appendix C
Classroom Observation Protocol
Teacher _______________________________ Date _______________________
School ________________________________ Grade/Subject: _______________
Observer _______________________________ Time: _______________________

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

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

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

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

Additional Classroom Environment Notes

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

123

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?

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

124

Observation Notes

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

125

Appendix D
Survey Instrument

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

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

126

Technology
and
Instruction

9. I
have
been
integrating
technology
into
my
daily
lessons
for…

0-‐1
years

2-‐3
years

4-‐5
years

5+
years

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

Absolutely

For
the
most
part

Somewhat

Not
at
all

11. My
professional
development
prepared
me
to
incorporate
21
st

century
learning
skills
on
a

daily
basis
in
my
classroom.

Absolutely

For
the
most
part

Somewhat

Not
at
all

12. My
professional
development
prepared
me
for
the
use
of
technology
in
my
classroom.

Absolutely

For
the
most
part

Somewhat

Not
at
all

13. How
often
do
you
incorporate
technology
into
your
daily
lessons?

Never

Sometimes

Most
of
the
time

Always

14. The
administrative
team
actively
supports
the
integration
of
technology
into
the
school’s

classrooms.

Never

Sometimes

Most
of
the
time

Always

15. I
believe
that
technology
positively
impacts
student
creativity.

Never

Sometimes

Most
of
the
time

Always

16. I
believe
that
technology
integration
requires
student
collaboration.

Never

Sometimes

Most
of
the
time

Always

17. I
believe
that
technology
is
relevant
for
both
student
engagement
and
student
achievement.

Absolutely

For
the
most
part

Somewhat

Not
at
all

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

127

18. The
school’s
investment
in
technology
has
proven
worth
its
cost.

Absolutely

For
the
most
part

Somewhat

Not
at
all

19. Technology
has
impacted
teaching
in
what
way?

Significantly
enhanced
teaching

Has
somewhat
improved
teachers’
ability
to
instruct
and
manage

Has
had
a
slightly
negative
impact
on
the
teaching
profession

Has
proved
subversive
to
the
abilities
and
missions
of
teachers

20. I
feel
confident
when
integrating
technology
into
my
classroom
instruction.

Absolutely

For
the
most
part

Somewhat

Not
at
all

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

128

Appendix E
Document Review 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

INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY

129

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

Understand models of technology integration
at the school

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

How long has the technology been available
at the school?

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

Documents:

How are the technology tools used to aid
student learning?

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

130

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
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

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study examined how technology has been integrated into a high‐achieving public high school. Although access to technology has significantly increased in K-12 schools in the last decade and half, an overwhelming body of research indicates the actual usage in most classrooms to be of a low‐level (i.e. administrative, skill‐drill, etc.) variety. The environment created by typically teacher‐centered methods is made even more potentially detrimental to student engagement and learning by the fact most students are immersed in a rich digital world outside of their schools. The study aimed to explore how one school identified forms of and then integrated technologies into its classrooms, and the study then gathered information on its perceived impact on student learning, teacher instruction, and the overall school climate. A survey of school staff, document analysis, interviews with administrators and teachers, and classroom and campus observations were triangulated in order to determine perceived impacts of the school’s technology adoption efforts. The researcher determined this one school’s efforts at technology integration were made successful by its ability to keep technology a means rather than a purpose, its ability to engage and empower all stakeholders, and its strict adherence to the problem‐based learning model.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

Learning and teaching with technology

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

Asset Metadata

Creator Clowes, Lester Milford (author)

Core Title Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/17/2015

Defense Date 03/02/2015

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

Tag classroom,constructivism,constructivist,digital,digital literacy,instruction,integrating,integrating technology,OAI-PMH Harvest,problem based learning,problem based learning and technology,SAMR,students and technology,teacher perceptions,teacher perceptions of technology,Teachers,teaching,Technology,technology and teachers,technology case study,technology in the classroom,technology perceptions,TPACK

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart E. (committee chair), Green, Alan Gilford (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Creator Email clowes@usc.edu,lesterclowes@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-552407

Unique identifier UC11297912

Identifier etd-ClowesLest-3332.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-552407 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ClowesLest-3332.pdf

Dmrecord 552407

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Clowes, Lester Milford

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