Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Transformative technology: teaching and learning at a 21st century elementary school
(USC Thesis Other)
Transformative technology: teaching and learning at a 21st century elementary school
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 1
TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY:
TEACHING AND LEARNING AT A 21ST CENTURY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
By
William J. MacDonald III
______________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2015
Copyright 2015 William J. MacDonald III
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
For my amazing wife, Melissa F. MacDonald, Ph. D., whose indispensable advice in
regards to qualitative research, data analysis, and scholarly writing supported and sustained me
throughout the dissertation process. More importantly, thank you Melissa for caring for me, our
children, and our home while I spent many nights and weekends absent in classes, readings, and
papers. I truly could not have done this without your love, support, and patience. I love you.
For Molly, who was four when I started this program and is now a scholar in her own
right. She will be overjoyed to have her Daddy home, regardless of what letters he has behind
his name.
For Liam, who made me laugh when I needed it and gave me perspective on what was
important. He waited with great patience to play Legos with me. It is time to make up that
borrowed time.
I would also like to thank Dr. Stuart Gothold who honored my passion to research
technology in schools and guided me through this demanding process. Your confidence in me
and consistent guidance allowed me to learn, grow, and make a meaningful contribution in what
I know is a critical area in education. Finally, I’d like to thank Dr. Frank Donavan who has
unconditionally supported me in my professional and academic pursuits. It is much appreciated.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 8
Key Terms and Definitions 14
Organization of Study 18
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19
History, Background, and the Current Landscape of Technology Use in Schools 19
The Major Arguments For the Use of Technology in Schools 24
The Major Arguments Against the Use of Technology in Schools 27
Frameworks for Successful Technology Integration 31
Constructivist Learning Theory 33
Promising Models for Technology Learning 34
Factors/Barriers Impacting Technology Integration in Schools 37
Summary 41
Chapter 3: Methodology 44
Research Questions 46
Research Design 46
Population and Sample 47
Instrumentation 48
Document Review Protocol 49
Survey Instrument 49
Classroom Observation Instrument 50
Interview Protocol 51
Data Collection 52
Validity and Reliability 55
Data Analysis 56
Chapter 4: Results 59
Treatment of Data 59
Participant Description 60
Research Question 1A 60
Narrative 60
Findings 62
Discussion 65
Research Question 1B 65
Findings 65
Discussion 71
Research Question 2 72
Narrative 72
Findings 73
Positive Impacts of Technology 73
Negative Impacts of Technology 84
Discussion 86
Research Question 3A 87
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 4
Narrative 87
Findings 88
Discussion 94
Research Question 3B 94
Narrative 94
Findings 95
Discussion 99
Summary 99
Chapter 5: Discussion 101
Discussion of Themes 102
Implications for Practice 107
Future Research 110
Conclusions 111
References 112
Appendix A: Instruments and Protocols 119
Document Review Protocol 119
Survey Instrument 122
Classroom Observation Instrument 125
Interview Protocol 128
Teacher Interview Protocol 128
Administrator Interview Protocol 129
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Technology-Based Learning Activities Organized by SAMR 69
Table 2: Four Frames and Corresponding Technology Leadership Challenge 95
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Top Five Technology Applications as Reported by Teachers 66
Figure 2: Teachers Perspectives on the Impact of Technology on Students 74
Figure 3: Teacher Proficiency with Classroom Technology 89
Figure 4: Influential Factors Shaping Classroom Technology Use 90
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 7
ABSTRACT
There can be no doubt that we live in an increasingly technology driven world. If the
purpose of schooling is to prepare students for active and informed participation in modern
society, then schools need to embrace technology and leverage it to provide more powerful and
relevant learning experiences for twenty-first century students. Unfortunately, this shift is not
happening in the majority of schools due to numerous barriers associated with technology
integration and use. The purpose of the current study is to examine a school that has overcome
these barriers and integrated technology to transform teaching and learning. This study was
conducted in a suburban elementary school in Los Angeles, California. The school was
purposefully selected due to its track record of academic success and its numerous
commendations for technology usage. This qualitative case study documents the technology
present at the school, how it is being utilized by teachers and students in K-5 classrooms, the
impact of technology on teaching and learning, and how the integration was influenced by school
culture and leadership. Primary data sources include document review, staff surveys, intensive
classroom observations, and staff interviews. Analysis revealed that successful technology
integration that results in the transformative use of technology in classrooms requires long term
planning and sustained effort over time, skilled and experienced teachers, strong, pro-technology
leadership, and a school climate rich in professional development and peer collaboration. When
these factors are present, technology can be utilized to redefine the role of teacher and student
and enhance and extend student learning. Findings from this study have important real world
implications that can be utilized to develop a versatile framework for how school leaders and
teachers can effectively integrate technology into schools and classrooms to transform teaching
and learning.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 8
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“Any education should be, in its forms and methods,
an outgrowth of the needs of the society in which it exists.”
- John Dewey, 1916
In 2010, Google CEO Eric Schmidt stated that, at present, human beings collectively
generate as much information and data every two days as all the information and data created
between the dawn of civilization and the year 2003. This staggering statistic is a clear reminder
that, for better or worse, we live in one of the great, transformational periods of human history –
the onset of a technology-driven knowledge revolution. Not since the invention of Gutenberg’s
printing press in the fifteenth century has there been a comparable global shift in the ability of
human beings to create, access, and share information. In our time, libraries and printed text
have ceased to be the sole repositories of human knowledge. Instead, the global internet now
offers the sum total of all human experience - including texts, audio, pictures, and video – and
access to this information is instantaneous via wireless, mobile devices.
Technology has been the driving force behind the knowledge revolution and the ensuing
“Information Age” in which we now find ourselves. In the past decade, the internet, laptop
computers, smartphones, and tablet computers have fundamentally changed the ways in which
we communicate, work, and learn. Recent surveys indicate that more than 85% of adults (18 and
older) use the Internet on a daily basis, 56% own smartphones, 61% own laptops, and more than
a third (34%) own tablet computers (Pew, 2013). The numbers are even more striking amongst
teenagers. Currently, more than 95% of teens use the internet on a daily basis and 74% are
“mobile internet users” who indicate that they access the internet via hand-held mobile devices.
Email and social networking have become the preferred form of communication for billions of
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 9
adults while most teens communicate exclusively through texting and instant messaging (Pew,
2010). Clearly, the ways in which we communicate have changed rapidly and dramatically in a
short period of time.
Technology and the knowledge revolution has also transformed the kinds of jobs
available and the worker competencies needed to be successful in these new jobs. In 1993
Seymour Papert, seminal researcher and educational technologist, stated that:
Today, most people are doing jobs that did not exist when they were born. The
most important skill determining a person’s life pattern has already become the
ability to learn new skills, to take in new concepts, to assess new situations, to
deal with the unexpected. This will be increasingly true in the future: the new
competitive ability is the ability to learn. (pg. vii)
This statement has proven prophetic in the past twenty years as the job market has
changed and evolved. Increasingly, jobs require technological knowledge, media
literacy, and the ability to learn and process information at an accelerated rate (Trilling &
Fadel, 2009). There has, and continues to be, significant growth in the demand for high-
tech, medical, legal, and financial workers (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012). A
recent employment report states that high-tech jobs have outpaced all other areas of job
growth by a factor of 27:1. High-tech jobs also pay 17-27% more than jobs in other
fields (Technology Works, 2012). Furthermore, even jobs that were once considered low-
tech, low-skill jobs, such as a secretary or factory worker, are now demanding higher
levels of sophistication with computers and software (Collins & Halverson, 2009). As a
whole, there has been a general shift from the need for hands-on, concrete work to more
abstract or inferential work. This new “knowledge economy” has resulted in more
demand for highly educated, highly skilled workers, particularly in STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) related fields. Annual wages for young
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 10
workers reflect this with those with Master’s Degrees or higher earning more than twice
of those with only a high school degree (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012).
In the same way that technology has transformed how we live, communicate, and
work, it should also be transforming how we learn. In the early twentieth century, John
Dewey (1916) argued that education serves the purpose of preparing future citizens for
active participation in a democratic society. In his view, the curriculum, instruction, and
organization of learning in schools should constantly change to mirror and meet the needs
of the society in which it exists. By this logic, if the ways we live, communicate, and
work in the 21
st
century have changed fundamentally as the result of the technology
driven knowledge revolution, then our schools should also change in order to best prepare
students for full participation in this new, digital, information-driven world.
Unfortunately, today’s public education system has, on the whole, been unable to
keep up with the rapid pace of technological change (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Papert,
1993; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). In fact, the structure of public schools and the
pedagogical approaches used by teachers have changed very little in the past 150 years.
They are still primarily grounded in the “one-sized fits all” mass production paradigm of
the late 19
th
century (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). This is problematic and has resulted in a
mismatch between the kinds of knowledge, skills, and competencies that 21
st
century
employers are demanding and the kinds of students that schools are producing.
This mismatch has negative ramifications for students currently attending K-12 schools.
“Generation N” (Net), which includes those currently eighteen years old and younger, is the first
generation to live their entire life in the current technology-saturated, knowledge rich society.
Mobile, wireless devices, instant communication via text messaging and social networking, real
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 11
time sharing of photos and video, and access to vast amounts of information via the internet are
the birthright of Generation N. Aptly called “digital natives”, this generation marks a
fundamental change in the way human beings interact with one another as well as the ways in
which they think, process, and learn information (Prensky, 2001; Thompson, 2013). Not
surprisingly, Generation N students are largely disengaged with the textbook driven, teacher-
directed learning ubiquitous in traditional schools. Having communicated, learned, and
expressed themselves through technology since they could walk, this cohort of students has
experienced first-hand the richness of learning with technology and are frustrated at schools
efforts to limit or, in some cases, ban the use of technology for learning (Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
In a very real sense, it can be likened to a school prohibiting the use of an English Learner’s
primary language to scaffold their learning. Of course, a school would not consider doing this to
a language learner. However, many schools feel justified in doing something akin to this to the
students of Generation N when it comes to technology use. This is happening despite research
that confirms that technology has the potential to engage this generation of students and increase
achievement levels (Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). Clearly,
something needs to change in order for schools to capitalize on these students’ technological
strengths and better prepare them for life and work in the 21
st
century.
To their credit, educators have made significant efforts to better integrate and utilize
technology in order to make schools a better match for the current society and for generation N
students. The International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE) and the Partnership for
21
st
Century Skills (P21) have created new frameworks for 21
st
Century learning that outline
alternate literacies including information, media, and technology skills (International Society of
Technology in Education, 2007; Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills, 2009). The new Common
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 12
Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010), adopted by forty-five
states as the new national education standards, embed a multitude of technological literacies.
These include using media literacy to interpret video and digital texts and the creation and use of
multimedia to communicate learning to others. In terms of technology hardware, many states,
districts, and schools have invested heavily in new computers, tablets, projectors, and wireless
networks to bring their classrooms into the 21
st
century. This investment has effectively
eliminated the “digital divide” between socioeconomic groups and granted reasonable access to
technology at the majority of U.S. schools (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011). However,
despite this progress, most schools are not successfully integrating and using this new technology
to enhance and transform student learning due to a variety of challenges and barriers (Collins &
Halverson, 2009).
The challenges and barriers associated with successful technology integration and use in
schools are myriad and well documented (Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Buckenmeyer, 2010; Collins &
Halverson, 2009; Ertmer, 1999, 2010, 2012; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
They include general societal beliefs about technology use in schools, the intractable nature of
public schools, and debates about the best pedagogical approaches to using technology in
classrooms. They also include first order barriers such as access to hardware and tech support
and second order barriers such as school climate, leadership (or lack thereof), professional
development, and teacher beliefs and attitudes towards technology (Ertmer, 1999). In order to
use technology to truly transform teaching and learning, these challenges and barriers must be
successfully overcome. Unfortunately, for the majority of schools, this has proven difficult –
even impossible. This, as stated earlier, is problematic for both current students and employers
who are seeking workers with 21
st
century skills and competencies.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 13
There are, however, schools that have transcended these difficulties and are finally
realizing the potential of technology to truly transform teaching and learning. In these schools,
technology is widely used by staff and students to conduct research, gather information, create
representations of understanding, collaborate with peers, and communicate learning. In these
schools, technology is used to differentiate content, assess student learning in real time, and
design innovative solutions to real world problems. These high tech schools are worthy of
further investigation in order to better understand how they overcame the challenges and barriers
associated with technology integration and the resulting impact that technology is having on
classroom teaching and learning. This important work is the focus of the current study.
While there is a large body of research on best practices for technology integration in
both K-12 and post-secondary schools, the majority of this research is quantitative in nature and
encompasses a wide range of schools at various levels of technology integration and use. What
is missing from the literature is a deeper examination of schools that are already successfully
using technology including how it is transforming teaching and learning and how the schools
arrived at their current level of competence with technology. A rich, detailed account of
effective technology integration at the elementary (K-5) level would be particularly useful as
there are few documented examples of these environments and the specific culture, leadership,
instructional practices, and teacher beliefs that contribute to success at this level.
The purpose of the current study is to provide a rich, detailed description of the impact of
technology on teaching and learning at a high technology use elementary school. Due to the
nature of this research study, a qualitative case study methodology was selected. This case study
utilized document review, surveys, observations and interviews to document what technology is
available at the school, examine how it is being used to transform classroom learning, understand
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 14
the perceived impact of technology on learning from the perspective of all stakeholders at the
school, and determine how the school climate and leadership supports technology integration and
use. The study was informed by the following research questions:
1. What technology is present at the school (and in the classroom) and how it is used as a
tool of instruction in the classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of the technology on teaching and learning?
3. How does the school climate and leadership support the integration of technology?
Findings from this study will contribute to the current literature defining best practices
for technology integration and guide the development of elementary school technology
integration plans. The findings will also be used to guide best practices for technology use in the
classroom and assist school leaders in creating the right climate, professional development, and
supports to integrate technology in classrooms in meaningful ways that transform teaching and
learning. In a larger sense, the goal of the study is provide a roadmap that will help schools
navigate the challenges and barriers associated with technology integration and use. This will
allow schools to create technology enhanced learning environments that will best prepare their
students for full and meaningful participation in the technologically driven world they live and
work in.
Key Terms and Definitions
The following is a list of key terms and definitions for the current study:
Academic Performance Index (API). The cornerstone of California’s Public Schools
Accountability Act of 1999; measures the academic performance and growth of schools on a
variety of academic measures on scale of 200 to 1000 (www.cde.ca.gov).
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 15
California Standards Test (CST). A range of assessments under the California STAR umbrella
testing students in 2
nd
-12
th
grade in a variety of academic areas (www.cde.ca.gov).
California Department of Education (CDE). The governing body for public education in the
state of California.
Challenge Based Learning (CBL). An engaging multidisciplinary approach to teaching and
learning that encourages learners to leverage technology to solve real-world problems (Johnson
& Brown, 2011).
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). A set of high-quality academic standards in
mathematics and English language arts/literacy developed by a consortium of national
representatives and adopted by the majority of states (www.corestandards.org).
Computer Adaptive Tests (CAT). Computer based assessments that adapt both questions and
the level of difficulty depending on the responses of the test taker.
Critical Thinking, Communication, Collaboration, Creativity (4Cs). Four critical skills
developed by the Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills needed by 21
st
century students in order for
them to actively participate in the increasingly digital, technology-driven world (www.p21.org).
Depth of Knowledge (DOK). Webb's Depth of Knowledge (DOK) provides a vocabulary and a
frame of reference when thinking about how students engage with the content. DOK offers a
common language to understand "rigor," or cognitive demand, in assessments, as well as
curricular units, lessons, and tasks. Webb developed four DOK levels that grow in cognitive
complexity and can be used to guide the development of learning tasks.
International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE). The International Society for
Technology in Education is the premier nonprofit organization serving educators and education
leaders committed to empowering connected learners in a connected world (www.iste.org).
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 16
No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a United States Act
of Congress that is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which
included Title I, the government's flagship aid program for disadvantaged students. NCLB
supports standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and
establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education
(http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html).
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (P21). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills was
founded in 2002 as a coalition bringing together the business community, education leaders, and
policymakers to position 21st century readiness at the center of US K-12 education
(www.p21.org).
Project Based Learning (PBL). Project-based learning is a pedagogical approach focused on
teaching by engaging students in investigation. Within this framework, students pursue solutions
to nontrivial problems by asking and refining questions, debating ideas, making predictions,
designing plans and/or experiments, collecting and analyzing data, drawing conclusions,
communicating their ideas and findings to others, asking new questions, and creating artifacts
(Blumenfeld, 1991).
SAMR Model for Technology Integration. A tiered framework that identifies four distinct
levels of technology integration and use including substitution (S), augmentation (A),
modification (M), and redefinition (R). In terms of their impact on teaching and learning,
substitution indicates no functional change while redefinition, at the other end of the spectrum,
constitutes students and teachers working in ways not possible before technology was present
(Puentedura, 2006).
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 17
School Accountability Report Card (SARC). California public schools annually provide
information about themselves to the community allowing the public to evaluate and compare
schools for student achievement, environment, resources, and demographics (www.cde.ca.gov).
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Content or project based
pedagogy that holistically incorporates science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as a
means of developing student interest and capacities in these areas.
Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA). A comprehensive school document that
involves the collection and analysis of student performance data, setting goals for program
improvement, and ongoing monitoring of the goals and results (www.cde.ca.gov).
Second Level Digital Divide (SSLD). The SSLD describes the difference in how technology is
utilized as opposed to the “Digital Divide” which primarily was concerned with demographic
differences in access to computer hardware (Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011).
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Smarter Balanced is a state-led
consortium developing assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards in English
language arts/literacy and mathematics that are designed to help prepare all students to graduate
high school college-and-career-ready (www.smarterbalanced.org).
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR). The STAR Program looks at how well schools
and students are performing. Students take tests in math, reading, writing, science, and history.
Teachers and parents can use test results to improve student learning (www.cde.ca.gov).
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). A framework for successful
technology integration that states that ideal teaching and learning with technology takes place
when teachers possess the right content knowledge, utilize the right pedagogical approaches, and
select the right technology to meet their learning objectives (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 18
Organization of Study
This research study is organized into six chapters as follows: Chapter 1 – Overview of the
Study, Chapter 2 – Literature Review, Chapter 3 – Methodology, Chapter 4 – Results, and
Chapter 5 – Discussion and Findings. Chapter 1 provides background on the problem, the
statement of the problem, and the purpose and importance of the study. Chapter 2 reviews the
existing literature relevant to the problem including the history and current landscape of
technology in schools, the major arguments for and against the use of technology in schools,
promising frameworks and models for the successful integration of technology in schools, and
factors/barriers impacting technology use in schools. Chapter 3 explains the qualitative methods
used for the study, how the sample population was selected, the instruments designed for data
collection, and how data was collected and analyzed. Chapter 4 details the results and major
themes of the research study. Chapter 5 discusses the major themes in relation to the research
around technology integration in schools. Finally, recommendations will be made for
application of the major themes to the field of education and for future areas of study.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 19
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
There can be no doubt that we live in an increasingly digital, technology oriented society.
If the purpose of schooling is to prepare students for active and informed participation in modern
society, then schools need to embrace technology and leverage it to provide meaningful and
relevant learning experiences for students. Unfortunately, this shift is not happening in the
majority of schools due to numerous salient factors. Therefore, the purpose of the current study
is to examine a K-12 school that has successfully integrated technology to understand how
technology is transforming teaching and learning and the factors that contributed to the school’s
successful use of technology.
The following review of the literature constitutes a purposeful sampling of the current
research regarding technology integration and use in schools. As the rate of technological
change in society and school is exponential in nature, it is challenging to capture all aspects of
this phenomenon. Therefore, this research summary will target the major themes directly
impacting the successful integration and use of technology in schools including the history and
current landscape of technology use in schools, the major arguments for and against the use of
technology in schools, promising frameworks and models for the successful integration of
technology in schools, and factors/barriers impacting technology use in schools. In doing so, the
need for the current study will be framed and validated as a means of furthering what is known
about technologies impact on teaching and learning and successfully overcoming barriers to
integrating technology in schools.
History, Background, and the Current Landscape of Technology Use in Schools
Since the arrival of the personal computer (PC) in the early 1980s, technology enthusiasts
and educational experts alike have predicted that computers would transform traditional
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 20
schooling by individualizing learning and differentiating content (Cuban & Cuban, 2009).
However, like its predecessors radio, television, and film, the personal computer failed to
transform the highly entrenched structure and rigid instructional practices inherent to American
schools. However, the internet, current wireless, mobile technologies, and a push towards
technological learning and 21
st
Century literacies may at last be providing the much needed
impetuous that will allow schools to realize the power of technology to transform teaching and
learning (Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
John Dewey (1916, 1990) argued that education serves the purpose of preparing future
citizens for active participation in a democratic society. In his view, the curriculum, instruction,
and organization of learning in schools should constantly change to mirror and meet the needs of
the society in which it exists. Unfortunately, today’s public education system has, on the whole,
not been able to keep up with the rapid pace of technological change our society has experienced
in the past three decades (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Papert, 1993; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). In
fact, the structure of public schools and the pedagogical approaches used by teachers have
changed very little in the past one hundred and fifty years.
Developed as a response to and in conjunction with the demands of the industrial
revolution, public schooling initially evolved to provide students with a structured and uniform
set of content knowledge, behaviors, and work skills. True to the spirit of the time, students
were considered interchangeable widgits that would benefit from an assembly line approach to
learning delivered in an efficient and industrious manner: direct instruction transferring
knowledge from the teacher to the student (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Papert, 1993, Trilling &
Fadel, 2009). Surprisingly, considering the major social, political, and technological movements
of the past century and a half, this model has remained intact to the present day in the majority of
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 21
schools. Papert (1993) aptly used the analogy of time travelers from the past century to the
present to demonstrate this point. Nineteenth century doctors traveling to the present would be
surprised and in awe of the new practices and technology used in medicine. In contrast,
nineteenth century teachers would feel very comfortable in a modern classroom as very little
there has changed.
Education, on the whole, has recognized this mismatch and has made various attempts to
bring schooling in line with the rest of society in terms of technology use and integration. The
personal computer (PC) was widely adopted by many schools through the 1980s and 1990s.
However, despite its promise and high expectations, it did not have a substantial effect on
teaching and learning. Computer labs, as it turned out, were not immediate or accessible enough
to have a real impact on learning (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
Moreover, they were too often used for “drill and kill” activities that did not promote higher
order thinking. Math worksheets became Math Blaster and cursive became keyboarding but no
fundamental changes to learning or pedagogy occurred. In describing this period of technology
use in schools, Resnick (2002) aptly stated that while the potential for technology to transform
education was present during this time, most technologies were simply used as expensive
replacements for existing teaching practices rather than as transformative tools. Puentedura
(2006) whose SAMR model defined levels of technology integration in a spectrum from
substitution (S), to augmentation (A), to modification (M), to redefinition (R), would classify this
kind of technology use as a substitution – no real function change in the activity and not
transformational to teaching and learning.
Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, the laptop computer offered similar promise to
transform teaching and learning due to its portability and individualized nature. However, even
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 22
in schools where individual laptops were put in the hands of teachers and students, the impact on
learning was marginal and not fully realized due to a variety of factors including the firmly
entrenched pedagogy of American schools (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
However, an important innovation of this period was the creation and increasing use of the
global internet. The internet allowed many schools to begin to recognize the promise of
technology for research, communication, and the individualization of student learning (Ross,
Morrison, & Lowther, 2010). This was the first of several critical factors that would ultimately
transform society and usher in an age of increased technology use in schools.
The internet, coupled with the decreasing cost of technology and the introduction of the
tablet computer and the smartphone circa 2005, made technology more accessible, affordable,
individualized, and ubiquitous in schools. Educators and policymakers quickly realized the
potential impact that these new technologies could have on teaching and learning. In response,
the International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE) and the Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (P21) created frameworks for 21
st
Century learning that outlined alternate
literacies including information, media, and technology skills (International Society of
Technology in Education, 2007; Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills, 2009). These frameworks
stressed the use of technology in schools to promote higher level learning that included critical
thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity (the 4Cs). No longer was technology use
optional or a supplement to traditional core subjects. Instead, a new vision had been created that
defined a successful student as one who could use technology to participate in the new global,
digital society (Garrison, 2011).
The new Common Core State Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010)
adopted by forty-five states as the new national education standards, drew heavily on both the
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 23
ITSE and P21 frameworks to ensure that students were college and career ready. Embedded in
the English-Language Arts and Social Studies standards are a multitude of technological
literacies including media literacy to interpret video and digital texts and the creation and use of
multimedia to communicate learning to others. Throughout, the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) place a great deal of emphasis on the high level use of technology (including the 4Cs) as
a means of preparing students to be productive and competitive global citizens. Not surprisingly,
the new assessments that accompany the CCSS are computer adaptive tests (CAT) that require
students to navigate a computer using a mouse and keyboard and interpret information from
multiple digital sources including texts, video, and infographics. Designed by the Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), these new assessments measure both content
knowledge and, to a lesser extent, a student’s degree of technological fluency and literacy
(Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, 2010).
Despite technology’s long and fairly unsuccessful history as a transformative learning
tool in schools, many experts believe that we have now reached a tipping point where the
widespread availability of mobile technologies, the global internet, and the need for
technologically savvy workers will require schools to integrate technology or risk becoming
irrelevant and obsolete (Garrison, 2011). Schools will need to integrate technology and realize
its potential to transform teaching and learning in order to prepare students for life and work in
the 21
st
century. Of course, this is easier said than done. Especially considering that there are
strong arguments both for and against technology usage in schools. In the following section,
both sides of this argument will be explored so as to better understand what is at stake as schools
move towards greater integration and use of technology.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 24
The Major Arguments for the Use of Technology in Schools
For decades, technology experts and enthusiasts have argued that technology has the
potential to transform the current industrial, one-size fits all model of schooling to one that is
inherently more learner-centered, relevant, and engaging (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Garrison,
2011; Papert, 1993, Resnick, 2002; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). The major arguments put forward
by this group include the potential for learning that is “on demand” or timely, differentiated to
individual student needs, interactive and engaging, able to provide immediate feedback, and can
facilitate increased collaboration and communication. Each of these arguments will be briefly
reviewed in this section to frame the positive aspects associated with the use of technology for
teaching and learning.
Technology can be used to provide “on-demand” and timely learning to students. Much
of what is currently taught in schools is not connected or relevant to what students need to know
in their daily lives. In fact, much of the content and skills that K-12 students learn in schools
will not make them college and career ready in the 21
st
century workplace (Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills, 2009). The combination of mobile, wireless technologies and the internet allows
students to access what they need to know, when they need to know it. This has the potential to
streamline learning and make it more relevant and, therefore, more likely to be retained (Collins
& Halverson, 2009; Garrison, 2011). It also allows students to learn at times that are convenient
to them and at a pace that meets their individual needs (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Online learning
sites such as Kahn Academy offer thousands of differentiated, self-paced learning videos in
mathematics, the sciences, history, and English-language arts. Internet sites like “YouTube”
similarly offer learning videos on everything from changing a light switch to advanced aerospace
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 25
engineering. Kahn Academy alone has over ten million users a month, a testament to the
attractiveness and effectiveness of digital, on-demand learning.
Technology allows learning to be differentiated to match the unique needs and skill levels
of each learner. For decades, educators have struggled with how to differentiate learning to meet
the individual needs of each student in their classrooms. With the rich lessons, videos, and
multimedia options now available via the internet, teachers can provide remediation and
acceleration for students with a click of the button without having to plan an entirely separate
curriculum (Collins and Halverson, 2009; Garrison 2011). Web-based companies such as
Achieve3000 are providing non-fiction texts, questions, and performance tasks that can be
instantly tailored to a student’s reading level. The results of computer adaptive assessments
(CAT) are being used to quickly assess student skill levels and assign differentiated content
within minutes (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). These kinds of technological innovations have allowed
educators to customize student learning. This has been directly linked to increased student
motivation and accelerated academic performance (Hattie, 2013).
Technology enhanced learning is inherently more interactive and engaging to learners,
particularly the current generation of digital natives. Traditionally, text in schools has been
defined as the written word found in textbooks or basal readers. However, new technologies
have broadened the definition of “text” to include digital text sources, videos, audio recordings,
digital images, and info-graphics (Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills, 2009). This shift has
created a richer, more dynamic means for learners to access information. It offers multiple ways
for learners to access information based on their individual learning styles and preferences
(Collins & Halverson, 2009; Resnick, 2002). New, digital learning platforms offer games and
simulations that allow students to actually see how complex systems work. iPad applications
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 26
such as “The Human Body” and “Solar Walk” provide students with interactive models of
human body systems and the solar system in incredible detail. Digital textbooks include
embedded videos that offer detailed models of complex systems and commentary from experts in
the field. These kinds of interactive experiences have been linked to increased student learning
and achievement. A meta-analysis by Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, and Schmid
(2011) found that students in classrooms where technology was integrated demonstrated 12%
higher achievement than peers in non-technology use classrooms.
Technology enhanced learning has the added benefit of being able to provide immediate
and regular feedback to students. In his meta-analysis of effective teaching techniques, Hattie
(2013) found the delivery of immediate feedback to learners to be in the top five most effective
strategies for increasing student achievement. This has always been a challenge in the traditional
classroom where it can take days, even weeks, for teachers to grade and return student work.
This problem is solved through technology enhanced learning platforms. Web-based learning
sites, digital textbooks, and learning games offer quizzes that test student understanding in real
time and provide both the teacher and student with immediate feedback on student performance.
More regular feedback allows students to, quite literally, learn from their mistakes and master
content and skills more rapidly (Garrison, 2011; Resnick, 2002; Papert, 1993).
Finally, technology enhanced learning offers students new and more relevant
opportunities to communicate and share their learning. One of the biggest criticisms of
traditional classroom learning is that it is removed from the “real world” and therefore not
relevant to students. Using technology and the global internet, students are now able to
communicate (via email or video conferencing) with students and experts around the world. For
example, students learning of the earthquake in Haiti were able to research the disaster in real
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 27
time, email and video conference with relief workers at the actual scene, and use this information
to start a school wide relief campaign in coordination with a local charitable organization
(Johnson & Brown, 2011). Using technology students can create multimedia projects that can be
shared via the internet with people all around the world. Video, podcasts, and interactive white
board presentations posted on YouTube, Facebook, or through learning applications like
Educreations or ShowMe, can attract thousands of viewers who offer support, feedback, and
critiques of student work. This global stage for student work offers a real and relevant forum for
students to share and discuss content, increasing engagement, motivation, and learning (Bell,
2010; Grant, 2002, 2011).
The Major Arguments against the Use of Technology in Schools
Despite the many compelling reasons and empirical support for the use of technology in
the classroom, there exist equally strong cases against the use of technology in schools. Several
of the most well founded of these arguments will be analyzed to provide a richer picture of the
potential issues surrounding the use of technology in schools. These arguments include cost and
access issues, challenges with classroom management, the potential for off task use of
technology, the dehumanization of learning and the subsequent loss of essential communication
and social skills, its negative effects on traditional learning measures, and the intransigent nature
of American schools.
Historically, the high cost of technology has led to inequitable access to technology. This
“digital divide” was initially conceived as a measure of the difference between “haves” and
“have-nots” in terms of computer hardware and access to the internet. Not surprisingly, this
divide fell along racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines with the white, upper-middle class
traditionally being the “haves” and other racially and ethnically diverse groups being the “have-
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 28
nots”. In A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding Their Use of the Internet (2002), the
U.S. Department of Commerce noted that almost twice as many White and Asian families
reported having home access to computers and the internet when compared to their Latino and
African-American counterparts. For families earning less than $15,000 yearly, only 33.3% had a
computer at home and only 14.3% had internet access at home, while for families with incomes
of over $75,000, 94.9% had a computer at home and 63.4% had internet access.
At present, with increasingly more affordable computers and the widespread availability
of internet access, the digital divide in terms of hardware and access has largely been resolved.
However, research now speaks to the existence of new Second-Level Digital Divide (SLDD).
The SSLD describes the difference in how technology is utilized (Dewan & Riggins, 2005;
Hargittai, 2002; Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011) rather than simply access to technological
hardware. The SLDD continues to highlight a discrepancy in terms of effective technology
utilization between racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Warschauer (2004) found that,
overwhelmingly, students in wealthier communities get more frequent opportunities to create
sophisticated multimedia whereas low-income students were often relegated to using computers
for remedial drills and exercises. This same discrepancy in technology usage has been found to
exist presently between schools in high and low incomes neighborhoods (Buckenmeyer, 2010).
Clearly, technology continues to create haves and have-nots which fall along socioeconomic
lines, further exacerbating problems of equity in schools.
Another argument against the use of technology in schools is that it has a negative impact
on classroom management and can promote off-task student behaviors. Technology use in the
classroom, whether in a 1:1 capacity or as a bank of computers that students can visit as a
learning center, challenges the ubiquitous teacher-directed classroom model. Teachers, used to
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 29
being in control, must relinquish control of learning to students who are most likely much more
technologically savvy than they are (Collins and Halverson, 2009). In the best-case scenarios,
this requires a substantial shift in pedagogy by the teacher towards a more student centered
learning model with clear expectations for technology usage. At the worst, it can cause major
disruptions to the learning environment as students use the technology to access games and
information not related to the classroom objectives (Garrison, 2011; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). Put
more directly, simply putting technologies into the hands of teachers and students without proper
training and forethought, has been demonstrated to negatively impact both instruction and
student learning (Clark & Feldon, 2005; Murray & Olcese, 2011)
There is also concern that overusing technology in classrooms will dehumanize learning,
replacing the teacher and devaluing essential communication and social skills. Many educational
experts and teachers believe that content is the least of what students learn in schools and that the
ability to communicate, collaborate, and problem solve with peers is what is most important
(Collins & Halverson, 2009). Technology, according to this perspective, does not provide the
same opportunities for students in these areas as do more traditional models of schooling.
Furthermore, it is argued that technology cannot replace a teacher’s ability to inspire and
motivate students. What is interesting about this perspective is that the Partnership for 21
st
Century Schools has made the 4Cs (communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and
creativity) central to their technology based skill model (Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills,
2009). Furthermore, it assumes a technology use model where the teacher is simply a passive
bystander and students are only consumers of technology delivered content. This is not the
constructivist, student centered technology integration model advocated for by prominent
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 30
researchers (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurer, & Sendurer, 2012; Keengwe &
Onchwari, 2011; Paily, 2013; Papert, 1993; Resnick 2006).
While there is abundant research that affirms the use of technology in classrooms to
increase student achievement (Hattie, 2013; Resnick, 2006; Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski,
Abrami, & Schmid, 2011), there are also studies that document technology’s negative impact on
motivation and learning. A report from Florida on the use of digital texts reported that digital
textbooks do not promote in-depth or sustained reading which in turn has a negative impact on
reading comprehension (Mardis, Everhart, Smith, Newsum, & Baker, 2010). Clark and Feldon
(2005) demonstrated that multimedia instruction, while more engaging to students, can results in
less effort and therefore less learning. Murray and Olcese (2011) researched 1:1 iPad classes and
discovered that the iPads were used almost exclusively to consume digital content as opposed to
the intended goal of fostering communication, collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. All
of these examples confirm that when technology is used as a replacement tool, or without careful
planning, training, and clear student outcomes, it can have a subtractive effect on student
learning and achievement.
Finally, many experts arguing against technology believe that it is “doomed to fail” due
to the intransigent nature of schools. The evidence for this argument lies in the long history of
failed attempts to integrate technology in American schools over the past thirty years and the
surprisingly inflexible nature of schooling in general (Collins and Halverson, 2009; Garrison
2011). Despite the rapid technological changes throughout the rest of society, schools have
stubbornly clung to the teacher directed “one room schoolhouse” model of doing business.
Those opposed to technology integration in schools argue that, given this reality, spending large
amounts of money on technology and professional development for teachers is not a good
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 31
investment and will not yield satisfactory results. Despite the historical basis for these
arguments, there have emerged several promising practices for effectively integrating technology
in schools and using it to transform both teaching and learning.
Frameworks for Successful Technology Integration
A large body of research exists that supports technology learning, both from a theoretical
point-of-view and in terms of specific instructional models that best realize the potential of
technology to transform teaching and learning (Ross, Morrison, Lowther, 2010). Several
promising frameworks have been developed that can be used to measure and better define
effective technology integration and use in schools. In this section, two of these frameworks will
be discussed and used as support for a constructivist approach to technology use in classrooms.
Three specific constructivist pedagogies, Project Based Learning, Challenge Based Learning,
and STEM learning will then be highlighted as promising practices for utilizing technology in
classrooms. Together, the frameworks, theory, and pedagogy will provide a comprehensive
overview of how technology can be best used to transform teaching and learning in schools.
One effective framework for measuring technology integration and use in schools is the
SAMR model as conceptualized by Puentedura (2006). SAMR identifies four discrete levels of
technology implementation that teachers can demonstrate ranging from substitution (S), to
augmentation (A), to modification (M), to redefinition (R). Initially, technology is used by the
teacher merely as a substitution for typical classroom activities (a whiteboard on an iPad instead
of a physical whiteboard) and the usage is largely teacher directed. However, as the use of
technology moves towards redefinition, technology use becomes more student-driven and is
associated with inquiry related problem solving and authentic, real world problems. The SAMR
spectrum of successful technology integration and use is consistent with other definitions of
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 32
effective technology use (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurer, & Sendurer, 2012;
Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Paily, 2013; Papert, 1993; Resnick 2006).
The “Technological Pedgaogical Content Knowledge” (TPACK) framework as
conceptualized by Koehler and Mishra (2009) builds upon the SAMR framework by defining the
critical elements and context needed to ensure the successful integration of technology in
schools. According to the framework, three kinds of knowledge are needed achieve success with
classroom technology use: content area knowledge (what to teach), pedagogical knowledge
(how to teach it), and technology knowledge (what technology can be used to support the
teaching and learning). Where these three areas intersect is TPACK and it is in this domain that
effective technology integration that transforms teaching and learning happens. Several studies
have used the TPACK model to assess technology usage or guide the integration of technology
in classrooms (Harris & Hofner, 2011; Hutchinson, Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2013;
Wetzel & Marshall, 2011). A major finding of these studies was that successful classroom
technology integration was driven first and foremost by a teacher’s knowledge of content and
pedagogy rather than by the technologies present in the classroom. In other words, the teacher’s
role in a high tech classroom is the number one factor driving the successful use of technology.
The SAMR and TPACK frameworks offer a tangible way to define and conceptualize the
effective use of technology for teaching and learning. Together, they call for an environment
where the teacher carefully structures the learning, leveraging effective pedagogical approaches
and the power of technology to maximize student learning of content. Ideally, the organization
of learning is student centered, inquiry-based, and involves authentic, real-world problem
solving. This description of learning is closely aligned with constructivist learning theory that,
among other things, emphasizes student centered, hands-on, activity based learning. In a number
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 33
of studies, Constructivist teaching approaches have proven to be a successful model for
integrating technology in the classroom (Ertmer, et al., 2012; Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Paily,
2013; Papert, 1993; Resnick 2006, 2009; Tondeur, Hermans, Braak, & Valcke, 2008).
Constructivist Learning Theory
Based on Piaget’s theories of learning, Constructivism is a pedagogical approach that
emphasizes student-centered learning and the construction of knowledge via hands-on activities
that are situated within real world contexts (Wadsworth, 1996). Constructivist learning requires
that students conduct research, discover inconsistencies in their own thinking, and collaborate
with others to resolve these issues and come to new, more sophisticated understandings (Duffy &
Jonassen, 1992; Lebow, 1993; Savery & Duffy, 1995). Constructivist learning, by its very
nature, is incongruent with traditional teaching practices that are typically teacher centered and
rely on the teacher imbuing the student with information. Pablo Freire (1993) would have
described this approach as the flawed “banking” model of education. Conversely, Freire would
have supported constructivism as a form of “problem posing” – learning grounded in a
meaningful context where the role of teacher and learner is fluid.
Significant research has been conducted linking constructivist teaching practices and
beliefs to effective technology integration and use in the classroom (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
Sadik, Sendurer, & Sendurer, 2012; Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Paily, 2013; Papert, 1993;
Resnick 2006, 2009; Tondeur, Hermans, Braak, & Valcke, 2008). These studies indicate that
teachers who believed in and used constructivist pedagogy were much more likely to not only
use technology but use it in effective and transformative ways. Transformative use of
technology indicates that the technology is used to provide innovative educational opportunities
that redefine and reorganize teaching and learning (Yang & Wu, 2012). The transformative use
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 34
of technology stands in contrast to less impactful uses of technology such as using it as a
substitution - a teacher using a Powerpoint to share information rather than writing it on the
blackboard - or an augmentation where typing instead of writing makes learning moderately
more efficient. More specifically, constructivist teaching practices used in a technology-rich
environment allow students to imagine, create, play, share, and reflect upon what they have
learned (Papert, 1993; Resnick, 2006, 2009). Papert and Resnick are joined by many other
experts in the educational technology field, including the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE, 2000) in advocating for constructivist uses of technology in classrooms
(Henandez-Ramos, 2005; Judson, 2006; Keengwe, 2011, 2013; Rakes, 2006). This body of
research indicates that when technology is used in conjunction with constructivist learning
approaches, there are significantly positive outcomes for both teachers and students including
increased engagement, individualization, and achievement.
Promising Models for Technology Learning
Project Based Learning (PBL), Challenge Based Learning (CBL), and Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) learning are three promising instructional
models that successfully integrate technology using constructivist pedagogy. PBL is a form of
instruction that offers students authentic tasks, grounded in student interests, where the learner
constructs an authentic artifact to share with others that demonstrates what they have learned
through the process (Bell, 2010; Grant, 2002, 2011). PBL stresses the acquisition of knowledge
through the process of researching and building knowledge rather than simply memorizing
content. Researchers agree that PBL is inherently more engaging to students due to the fact that
projects are relevant to students and involve self-direction, self-regulation, and reflection
(Tassinari, 1996; Wang, 2009; Worthy 2000). Many prominent educational technologists have
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 35
endorsed PBL as a best practice for integrating technology in classroom learning (Bell, 2010;
Kafai & Resnick. 1996; Pieratt, 2010). In doing so, they cite PBLs student centered approach to
learning and multiple solution pathways that make the use of technology a clear fit for the
learning outcomes. One example of PBL was students in New York City using linear Algebra
and matrices to decide the best use, commercial or residential, for an empty lot next to their
school and then sharing their findings with the mayor (Larmer & Mergendoller, 2011). In this
particular case, students used technology to conduct research, engaged in 3D modeling of uses
for the lot, and created and shared their presentations. Research indicates that students in PBL
classrooms make significantly more academic progress and score higher on standardized tests
then their typical peers (Bell, 2010).
Challenge Based Learning (CBL) is similar to PBL in that the work is project oriented,
student centered, and relevant. However, in CBL students are challenged to solve real world
problems by working together and using technology. CBL gives students an opportunity to
research and collaborate to make a significant difference both locally and globally. Researchers
assert that CBL is “ideally suited to teaching in a technology rich environment” (Johnson &
Brown, 2011, pg. 2) in that it allows students to gather information, collaborate, communicate,
and go beyond the walls of their schools to seek solutions to the challenges presented. Students
and teachers engaged in CBL reported high levels of engagement, learning, and use of
technology in line with the 4Cs advocated by the Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (Partnership
for 21
st
Century Skills, 2009). One example of CBL involved students in Australia learning
about earthquakes and disaster response and then working together to provide aide to students in
Christchurch, New Zealand. CBL learning is highly correlated with the redefinition activities as
defined by Puentedura (2006) in the SAMR model.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 36
Integrated Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teaching has
also proven to be a strong match for the constructivist use of technology (Beer, 2012; Hanson &
Carlson, 2005; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). By their very nature, STEM programs are cross-
curricular and focus on students using technology to find innovative solutions to real world
problems. STEM learning often starts with an authentic problem that needs to be solved via
research and the use of technology as a tool to build models, programs, and robots that can
mitigate the challenge (Beer, 2012). As such, STEM learning incorporates both PBL and CBL in
its methods. Research in STEM classrooms demonstrates that technology use in these
environments are most often aligned with the SAMR redefinition level and are driven by teacher
content knowledge and appropriate constructivist pedagogy as recommended by the TPACK
model (Hanson & Carlson, 2005).
There are, of course, researchers who decry the use of constructivist approaches to
learning including problem based and inquiry learning. Most often these arguments hinge on the
need for novice and intermediate learners to receive direct instruction and guidance from an
expert (the teacher) rather than be left to discover their own answers (Kirschner, Sweller, &
Clark, 2006). While this argument is valid in certain contexts, true constructivist approaches to
learning, including those that incorporate technology, are highly structured and guided by the
teacher, allowing the student to operate independently within a carefully designed framework
(Savery & Duffy, 1995). This once again confirms the teacher’s critical role in designing
optimal learning environments for students – perhaps even more so in constructivist and
technological enhanced learning environments.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 37
Factors/Barriers Impacting Technology Integration in Schools
In the past decade, technology has transformed how we access information,
communicate, work, and learn. In order to prepare for college, careers, and participation in our
current technology-driven society, students need to learn to utilize technology effectively to learn
and collaborate with others. The question then becomes not if schools should be utilizing
technology to enhance student learning, but why it is not already happening in our schools to a
much greater extent. Larry Cuban (2009), who has researched this particular phenomenon for
well over a decade, states that the most recent promises that technology will transform learning
in schools are no different than predications made at the onset of radio, television, film, and
throughout the 1980s and 1990s with personal computers. In all cases, these technologies had
little impact on teaching and learning despite their great promise. The reasons for the lack of
change in schools, despite the promise of new technologies, are myriad and require closer
consideration in light of the current study. In this section, several of the most salient factors
effecting the integration of technology in schools will be examined. Per Ertmer (1999), these
factors will be divided into first order barriers and second order barriers. First order barriers are
extrinsic and deal with teacher access, support, and time to use technology. Second order
barriers are intrinsic and deal with teacher beliefs about technology and how it utilized it in their
classrooms to support learning.
Physical access to computer hardware has historically been the most prominent of the
first order barriers to technology integration in schools. Broadly defined as the “digital divide”,
a school’s ability to purchase technology impacted who was and wasn’t using it (Dewan &
Riggins, 2005). Not surprisingly, this divide was most apparent between high income and low-
income schools. However, in the past decade, more affordable technologies and the advent of
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 38
Title I funding for schools in low socioeconomic areas, has largely resolved the hardware divide
(Reinhart, et., 2011). However, the life span and rapidly changing nature of technology continue
to make technology hardware a significant issue impacting integration (Hall, 2010). With an
average life span of five years and a high obsolescence rate, technology is something that needs
to be purchased regularly (Collins & Halverson, 2009). When coupled with the need for regular
tech support and updating, technology becomes an expensive ongoing investment for schools,
particularly in an age of shrinking school budgets.
Training (or the lack thereof) and time allotted to use technology were also found to be
significant first order barriers (Buckenmeyer, 2010; Ertmer, 1999). Studies found that many
schools use their resources to purchase technology without the foresight to plan teacher training
or allot time for technology usage. In many cases, this meant that expensive technology was
underutilized or not used at all (Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Inan & Lowther, 2010). To overcome
this barrier, schools need to budget money and time for teacher training. They also need to
rework school schedules and classes so there is more physical time for teacher and students to
use the technology.
Second orders barriers to technology integration describe the difference in how
technology is actually utilized by teachers rather than whether or not they have physical access to
the technology (Ertmer, 1999; Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011). Not surprisingly, how often
technology is used by teachers and their students - and what it is used for - varies greatly from
school to school. Second order barriers present a much greater challenge to overcome in that they
are less concrete and contingent upon many factors including the school climate in regards to
technology use, site leadership around technology use, the availability and quality of professional
development in educational technology, and teacher experiences, attitudes, and beliefs about
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 39
technology. All of these factors have been researched extensively and found to contribute to
whether or not technology is effectively utilized in a school (Bitner & Bitner, 2002;
Buckenmeyer, 2010; Ertmer, 1999, 2010, 2012; Inan & Lowther, 2010). For the purpose of this
study, each of these factors will be briefly reviewed to better understand how it impacts the
integration of technology in schools.
A school climate that encourages and supports the use of technology was found to
positively impact the effective use of technology (Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Buckenmeyer, 2010;
Ertmer, 1999, 2010, 2012; Inan & Lowther, 2010). One critical component found in school
climates that supported the use of technology was that they had a clearly defined vision and
strategic plan for technology integration (Ertmer, 1999). They had also overcome first order
barriers by providing access to technology for all staff, technical support, and had a robust
professional development program for teachers (Ramos, 2005). Successful school technology
climates also relied heavily on collaboration and peer coaching to support the use of technology
in all classrooms (Bitner & Bitner, 2002). Another interesting factor contributing to school
climates that supported technology was the age and experience of the teachers at the school.
Research found that, in general, older and more experienced teachers used technology less than
their young and less experienced peers (Inan & Lowther, 2010). Conversely, schools with
younger, more tech savvy teachers, tended to endorse and use technology more often.
A positive school climate for technology most often included strong site leadership from
the principal and teacher leaders. School leadership at high technology use schools facilitated
the creation of a strong vision for technology use, removed first order barriers to technology use,
organized effective professional development for teachers, encouraged collaboration around
technology, and held teachers accountable to using technology in ways that supported and
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 40
enhanced teaching and learning (Garland & Tadeja, 2013; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Ramos, 2005).
In contrast, in schools that lacked strong site leadership around technology, technology usage
was sporadic and mostly driven by individual teachers who were self-motivated to use
technology in their classrooms (Ramos, 2005). Of all the factors influenced by leadership, the
most critical two were found to be the organization of effective professional development around
technology use and the creation of a “professional learning community” that encouraged
collaboration, sharing, and peer coaching around technology use (Buckenmeyer, 2010). When
these factors were present at a school, technology was more widely integrated and used in ways
that transformed and enhanced teaching and learning.
The availability and quality of site professional development was found to be a critical
second order factor effecting technology integration (Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Buckenmeyer,
2010; Ertmer, 1999, Inan & Lowther, 2010). Schools that regularly dedicated professional
development time to teaching teachers how to use technology and letting teachers explore and
use technology demonstrated higher levels of technology usage and achievement (Garland,
2013). However, the types of professional development provided to teachers also impacted
technology use. Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) found that the most effective kinds of technology
professional development included information, time for application of learning, modeling, and
reflection/feedback. Effective professional development also included opportunities for teachers
to collaborate about technology learning and receive mentoring and coaching from peer
technology experts (Buckenmeyer, 2010). Unfortunately, technology professional development
was found to be generally lacking in most schools and, when present, it often involved only the
sharing of information rather than the more fruitful practices described above (Keengwe, 2009).
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 41
Surprisingly, the greatest single factor impacting whether or not teachers integrated
technology in their classrooms was their personals attitudes, beliefs, and experiences with
technology (Buckenmeyer, 2010; Ertmer, 2010, 2012; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Judson, 2006).
Researchers found, overwhelmingly, that a teacher’s perceived value of technology as an
instructional tool was the number one indicator of whether or not they utilized technology to
enhance teaching and learning in their classrooms. A teacher’s prior experiences/background
with technology and their comfort and competence with technology were also strongly correlated
with their technology use in the classroom (Mama & Hennessy, 2013; Palak & Walls, 2009;
Rakes, Fields, & Cox, 2006). Therefore, teachers with positive attitudes toward and a high
degree of experience with technology typically integrated technology into their teaching.
Conversely, teachers with negative attitudes towards and little experience with technology did
not use it in their classrooms. The teacher attitude and belief factor was so influential that even
in schools where there were significant access barriers, little support, and no professional
development around technology, teachers with positive attitudes towards and experience with
technology were still able to successfully bring technology to their classrooms (Ertmer, 2012;
Judson, 2006; Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007).
Summary
Technology has and will continue to transform the world we live in. In order to best meet
the needs of students growing up in the current digital “Information Age”, schools need to
integrate and use technology to transform and enhance student learning. Historically, technology
has not lived up to its potential to transform teaching and learning. This is due to a variety of
factors, the most salient being the intransigent nature of schools and highly entrenched pedagogy
dating back to the industrial revolution. However, a perfect storm of technology factors
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 42
including lower costs, the global internet, portable, wireless computing devices, and the need for
technologically savvy, 21
st
century workers may finally have created a tipping point that will
allow schools to realize the potential of technology. This potential includes timely, differentiated
content, highly interactive learning opportunities that provide immediate feedback, and the
opportunity for students to share and communicate their learning on a global scale.
A large body of research exists that supports technology integration in schools, both from
a theoretical point-of-view and in terms of specific instructional models that best realize the
potential of technology to transform teaching and learning. The SAMR and TPACK frameworks
point towards a model for technology use that is transformative, starts with content and
pedagogy, and is focused on student learning outcomes. Inherent to this model is a student-
centered approach to learning where technology is used to create, communicate, collaborate, and
solve real world problems. This approach to learning is most in line with Constructivist learning
theory. Several of the most successful pedagogical approaches to technology integration,
including Project Based Learning and STEM, are grounded in Constructivism.
Although, technology usage in schools has increased exponentially over the past decade,
there are still many barriers to successful technology integration. These include first order
barriers such as access to technology, tech support, and training. They also include more
challenging second order barriers such as school climate, leadership, effective professional
development, and teacher beliefs and attitudes. Effective integration of technology is highly
dependent on overcoming and/or mitigating these barriers.
Despite the myriad of challenges associated with integrating technology in schools, there
are schools that are effectively using technology to enhance and transform teaching and learning.
These schools have widespread technology use by both teachers and students and have
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 43
demonstrated positive student achievement results over a sustained period of time. Although the
current research has documented many of the best practices in technology use and integration
practices, it has mostly relied on large quantitative studies targeting middle schools, high
schools, and colleges representing a broad range of technology integration from low to high.
Therefore, it would be useful and informative to conduct a more targeted, qualitative case study
at an elementary school that has demonstrated successful technology integration over a sustained
period of time.
The purpose of this study is to provide rich, detailed descriptions of the impact of
technology on teaching and learning at a high technology use elementary school and to
understand how the school’s climate, leadership, and staff beliefs and attitudes made technology
integration and use successful. Findings from this study will contribute to the current literature
defining best practices for technology integration and guide the development of elementary
school technology integration plans. More specifically, the findings will be used to guide best
practices for technology use in the classroom and assist school leaders in creating the right
climate, professional development, and supports to integrate technology in classrooms in
meaningful ways that enhance teaching and learning.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 44
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to provide rich, detailed descriptions of the impact of
technology on teaching and learning at a high technology use school and to better understand
how the school’s climate, leadership, and staff beliefs and attitudes have made successful
technology integration possible. Findings from this study will contribute to the current literature
defining best practices for technology integration and guide the development of elementary
school technology integration plans. The findings will also be used to guide best practices for
technology use in the classroom and assist school leaders in creating the right climate,
professional development, and supports to integrate technology in classrooms in meaningful
ways that enhance teaching and learning.
The literature review outlined the myriad of challenges associated with integrating
technology in schools. Despite this, there are schools that are effectively using technology to
enhance and transform teaching and learning. These schools have widespread technology use by
both teachers and students and have demonstrated positive student achievement results over a
sustained period of time. Although the current research has documented many of the best
practices in technology use and integration practices, it has mostly relied on large quantitative
studies targeting middle schools, high schools, and colleges that represent a broad range of
technology integration from low to high. Therefore, it would be useful and informative to
conduct a more targeted, qualitative case study at an elementary school that has demonstrated
highly successful technology integration over a sustained period of time.
Therefore, this study examined the use of technology at a high performing K-5
elementary school in year three of a school-wide 1:1 iPad integration program. Criteria used to
select the school included sustained high academic achievement over the past three years as
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 45
measured by the California Standards Test (CST), a California similar schools ranking of seven
or above for the past three years, a well-articulated technology mission statement, a multi-year
technology integration plan, its status as an Apple Distinguished School for technology use, and
its population of greater than four hundred students.
Due to the nature of this research study, a qualitative case study methodology was
selected. The purpose of this study is to provide a rich, detailed description of the impact of
technology on teaching and learning at a high technology use elementary school. This includes
taking a close look at what technology is available, how it is being used in the classrooms, and
understanding the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning from the perspective
of all stakeholders at the school. This purpose is a good match for qualitative research that is
focused on understanding specific phenomenon from the participants (or emic) perspective
(Merriam, 2009). In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary instrument of data
collection and undertakes an inductive and iterative process where meaning and theory is built as
data is acquired in the field. The ultimate goal of qualitative research is to provide “rich and
thick” (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003) descriptions of specific phenomenon that get at its meaning
both at the basic level and as it relates to the greater body of literature. This description matched
the planned data collection methods for this study including surveys, interviews, and
observations. Furthermore, qualitative research is focused on identifying and studying a small,
purposeful sample group (Merriam, 2009). As this study focused on the technology practices at
one targeted elementary school meeting specific usage criteria, it was a strong match for
qualitative methods.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 46
Research Questions
Research questions were developed to gather information about the impact of technology
on the targeted elementary school. The questions were carefully constructed to result in rich and
thick descriptions of the practices observed at the school. A thematic dissertation team that met
over the course of one year developed the research questions. The team engaged in an extensive
literature review of the research on technology integration and use in K-12 schools. Through this
process, the research team identified three key areas that were critical to understanding the how
technology effects schools: availability of technology and pedagogical practices that support
technology integration, the impact of technology on teaching and learning, and the ways in
which school climate and leadership facilitate the use of technology. As a result, this study
specifically focused on answering the following research questions:
1. What technology is present at the school (and in the classroom) and how it is used as a
tool of instruction in the classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of the technology on teaching and learning?
3. How does the school climate and leadership support the integration of technology?
Research Design
Qualitative case study research was determined to be the best fit for the current study.
Case-study research is defined as an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system using
multiple sources of information (Cresswell, 2007; Merriam, 2009). Inherent to this definition is
that the study take place in the phenomenon’s natural setting, that the extent of the particular
phenomenon being investigated is finite and has limits in terms of the amount of data that can be
collected, and that several instruments will be used to provide rich data and triangulate findings.
In case study, the researcher is interested in gaining insight and discovering rather than testing a
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 47
hypothesis or known theory. Case studies are, by nature, descriptive and heuristic: they provide
rich accounts that can extend meaning and/or affirm what is already known about a topic
(Merriam, 2009). These criteria are in close alignment with the purpose of this study which
seeks to better understand and gain insight about how technology is impacting teaching and
learning and the dispositions towards technology of those involved in this phenomenon at a
specific school site.
Population and Sample
The study focused on one K-5 elementary school that has integrated technology in
classrooms school wide while simultaneously maintaining a high level of student achievement.
The school initiated its 1:1 iPad program in 2010. From 2010-2013, the school’s Academic
Performance Index (API) has increased steadily from 960, to 965, to 968. The Academic
Performance Index (API) is a single number assigned to each school by the California
Department of Education to measure overall school performance and improvement over time on
statewide testing. The API ranges from 200 and 1000, with 800 as the state goal for all schools.
As an annually high achieving elementary school with a similar schools ranking of 10 out of 10
over the past three years, a student population of over 450, a well-articulated technology
integration plan, and a designation as an Apple Distinguished School, this school met the criteria
defined for participation in the current study.
The targeted elementary school is located in a densely populated, urban suburb found in
the south Santa Monica Bay area of Los Angeles County. The total population of the city where
the elementary school is located is 36,108. Demographic information from the area shows the
community population is 87% White, 7.6% Hispanic or Latino, and 6% Asian. The annual
average income per family in the community is $201,000. The student population at the
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 48
elementary school is considerably more diverse than the surrounding community. 71% of
students are White, 12% two or more races, 10% Hispanic or Latino, and 6% Asian. 7% of
students are classified as students with disabilities and 2% of students are classified as English
Leaners or Socioeconomically Disadvantaged. In regards to the teaching staff, the elementary
school employs 37 teachers, all of whom are considered highly qualified per the standard set by
No Child Left Behind (NCLB). All 37 teachers have their full, clear teaching credential and
none of them are teaching in areas outside of their competence/expertise. The school also
employs one fully credentialed school administrator and a number of classified employees who
serve as instructional aides, office clerks, and media center assistants.
Instrumentation
The use of multiple forms of data, or triangulation, was used to validate the results of the
study. This study used the following data sources: (1) document review, (2) surveys, (3)
observations, and (4) interviews. The research instruments were developed collaboratively by
the thematic dissertation group in accordance with the literature on developing effective
qualitative instruments (Cresswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). More specifically,
Maxwell’s “Research Design/Validity Matrix” (pg. 131) was used to determine what information
was needed to answer the research questions and which instruments would provide the most
effective means of gathering this information. In keeping with the goal of data triangulation, the
research instruments were designed to support cross-confirmation of the findings. However,
they were also developed to obtain different pieces of information and avoid redundancy. All
data collection instruments were peer tested and reviewed, revised, and refined over several
months to ensure accuracy and effectiveness. A brief description of each instrument is included
below as well as their location in Appendix A.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 49
Document Review Protocol
Per Merriam (2009) documents are a ready-made source of data that is easily accessible
and can provide much needed insight into a particular phenomenon. In the current study,
documents were obtained, assessed for validity and accuracy, and used to compile information
about the selected school site including, but not limited to, the school’s demographics, academic
performance, vision and mission, staff qualifications, and current and planned use of technology.
The following documents were obtained and analyzed for this study: School Accountability
Report Card (SARC), Single School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), California
Academic Performance Index (API) report, Standardized Testing and Achievement Reporting
(STAR) data, site based multi-year technology plan, California Distinguished School application,
Apple Distinguished School application, school handbook, teacher handbook, school technology
usage agreement, professional development agendas and evaluations, and select pages of the
school website. The information from the documents was reviewed and cataloged according to
the major themes developed during data analysis. A more detailed alignment of the research
questions and the documents obtained to provide data to answer the specific questions can be
found in Appendix A: Document Review Protocol
Survey Instrument
A twenty-question survey was used to gather information from staff at the selected school
site. The survey was divided into four sections: Personal Demographics, Technology Access,
Technology Policies, and Technology and Instruction. Each of these sections was carefully
crafted to gather data pertinent to answering the research questions. All sections, except
Technology Access, used multiple-choice questions containing choices of specific personal
qualities/demographics or a four point rating scale ranging from “Not at All” to “Absolutely”.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 50
The Personal Demographics section sought information about age, experience, and position. The
Technology Access section asked staff to identify what technology was available to them and
their students. This section used an open-ended format due to the wide range of possible
answers. The Technology Policies section sought information about school wide technology
agreements. Finally, the Technology and Instruction section got at teacher beliefs, professional
development, and leadership around technology at the school. The purpose of the survey
instrument was to gather baseline information about technology availability and use at the school
that could be triangulated through observations and interviews. The survey instrument can be
found in Appendix B: Survey Instrument.
Classroom Observation Instrument
The observation instrument was developed using Merriam’s (2009) framework. This
framework recommended that observations be targeted and included a minimum of six specific
elements including: physical setting, the participants, activities and interactions, conversations,
subtle factors, and observer behavior. The observation instrument contained three major sections
each containing several elements of Merriam’s work: (1) “Classroom Environment” – including
physical setting and participants; (2) “What Technology Tools are Available?” – including
physical setting activities and interactions; and (3) “How is the Technology Used?” – including
activities, interactions, conversations, and subtle factors. Observer behaviors, anecdotal notes,
and emerging themes were noted on the right side of the observation instrument. Per Merriam
(2009), this reflective component is critical in terms of recording initial thoughts, feelings,
reactions, and interpretations of what is being observed.
The primary purpose of the observation instrument was to gather data about research
question one: what technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 51
classroom? To this end, section one documents the physical setting - including a picture of the
room set up without students present. Section two is used to record what technology is used and
how it is used. Section three looks specifically at how technology is used to accomplish the
stated learning objective of the observed lesson. As a whole, the observation tool was used to
provide a detailed picture of classroom technology and how it impacts learning. Data from the
observations was used to substantiate and correlate data acquired from documents, surveys, and
interviews. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix C: Classroom Observation
Instrument.
Interview Protocol
According to Weiss (1994), interviews should be used in order to bridge intersubjectivity
(grasp a situation from the inside), provide rich, detailed descriptions, and describe events or
processes relating to the research agenda. Initially, twenty interview questions were developed
based on the three research questions. These interview questions were developed based on
Merriam’s (2009) effective question types. The questions were piloted with colleagues and
several of the questions were retired as they did not elicit the intended responses in terms of
depth or breadth of information. Other questions were developed that were a better match the
research questions and several repetitive questions were dropped from the protocol. Ultimately,
the final questions were mapped directly onto the research questions in order to ensure that they
matched the objectives of the study. Due to the predetermined wording and order of the
questions, the interview protocol met the criteria for highly a structured/standardized interview
per Merriam (2009).
The final interview instrument contained fourteen interview questions for teachers and
thirteen interview questions for administrators. The first five questions were designed to answer
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 52
research question one and substantiate classroom observations. The next four questions targeted
research question number two and sought to gather data about teacher perceptions of technology
and its impact on student learning. The final five questions sought to answer research question
three and focused on the school culture and leadership around technology use. Together, the
questions provided a comprehensive approach to gathering the data need to answer the research
questions and corroborate the other instruments. The interview instrument can be found in
Appendix D: Interview Protocol.
The research instruments and protocols were developed to sort responses into the
categories based on Bolman and Deal’s four frames of leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
These include the Political Frame, the Symbolic Frame, the Structural Frame, and the Human
Resources Frame. Each instrument contains questions that specifically target one of these areas.
During data analysis, this allowed the researcher to sort relevant information into the frames to
determine which of them (or which combination of them) was the most salient in terms of
successfully integrating technology to enhance teaching and learning. Bolman and Deal’s
frames, and their bearing on the research questions, will be further explored in the
results/discussion sections of the current study.
Data Collection
Data collection took place at the school site over a period of eight weeks. The first step
was document review. While this process was ongoing throughout the data collection period, it
began even before the initial visit to the school site. Various documents were pulled from the
school web site and the California Department of Education (CDE) including the Single School
Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), the School Accountability Report Card (SARC), the
Technology Use Plan, the California Distinguished Schools Application, and the school vision
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 53
and mission. The school district also had a website dedicated to the 1:1 iPad program that was
being implemented at various sites across the district. Information about the program was culled
from this site. Once access was gained to the school site, copies of the school handbook, teacher
handbook, school technology usage agreement, professional development agendas, and
evaluations of professional development were acquired. These documents were reviewed,
coded, and sorted per their relevancy to each of the research questions.
After meeting the school staff, building rapport, and establishing the purpose of the study.
The survey instrument was distributed via email using Survey Monkey to relevant school
stakeholders including the teachers, principal, and instructional aides. Clear instructions were
included in the email about the purpose of the study, maintaining confidentiality, and instructions
on how to take and submit the survey. The survey was administered over the course of two
weeks. A gift card incentive was utilized to reward the five stakeholders who completed the
survey most quickly. A reminder was sent to all stakeholders after week one to ensure that the
survey has a high number of respondents (N) that was representative of the various roles and
responsibilities at the school site. Once the survey closed, compiled data was pulled from the
Survey Monkey website and coded and sorted in regards to its relevance to each of the research
questions.
Based on the survey responses and conversations with the school site principal, seven
classrooms were selected for observation – one in third grade, three in fourth grade, and three in
fifth grade. Criteria for selection of the classrooms included indication on the survey that the
teacher was proficient or advanced in technology use, that they had been integrating technology
for 2-3 years, and that they incorporate teaching into their classroom “Most of the Time” or
“Always”. Also pertinent to the selection of observation classrooms was the principal’s input on
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 54
teachers that were routinely using technology in transformative ways to enhance teaching and
learning in their classrooms. The hour-long classroom observations were scheduled with
teachers over a period of three weeks across a variety of content areas. During the observations,
the role of the researcher was that of an “observer as participant” (Merriam, 2009). This meant
that the researcher participated very little in the activity being observed, remained objective, and
took detailed notes on what has happening. Following each observation, if time permitted, the
teacher was asked follow up and clarifying questions. After exiting the classroom, observation
notes were immediately reviewed and expanded upon while the observation was still fresh in
mind. Once again, data pertinent to the research questions was coded and sorted for relevancy.
Merriam (2009) described several types of sample selection that could be used in order to
identify respondent or participants for interviews. In this study “purposeful sampling” was used
to select participants based on the document review, surveys, and the interview with the school
site principal. The respondents selected were also a “unique sample” in that they share specific
attributes and experiences that made they uniquely qualified to provide insight into the research
questions. Selected interviewees included the school site principal and nine classroom teachers.
The teachers selected were a subset of teachers who participated in the classroom
observations. In all, ten interviews were conducted over a four-week period. Interviews were
scheduled to accommodate the schedules of the interviewees in a neutral location at the school
site (Multi-Purpose Room and Media Center). Each interview was approximately 45 minutes to
one hour in length. Interviewees were made aware of the purpose of the interview, the
maintenance of confidentiality, and the length and number of questions. The interview format
was highly structured but did allow room for follow up questions that prompted interviewees to
expand upon their answers. Moreover, rapport was built purposely to encourage open and honest
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 55
conversation about technology practices at the school. All interviews were audio recorded using
a digital recorder with the interviewee’s permission. Following the interview, audio recordings
were transcribed to assist with coding and increase validity.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are critical considerations in a qualitative study. Maxwell (2013)
described two specific validity threats in qualitative case study research: (1) researcher bias (the
subjectivity of the researcher and/or preconceptions) and (2) reactivity (the influence of the
researcher on the setting or individuals studied). As an educator who has studied technology
integration extensively and as an administrator who has been involved with school wide
technology integration, I definitely came into this study with ideas about the best approaches to
teaching with technology and creating a school climate that supports the use of technology.
However, my awareness of this bias, the extensive review of the literature, and my determination
to ground my findings in the data collected at the site ameliorated this potential validity threat.
Reactivity was controlled by positioning myself as an “observer as participant” (Merriam, 2009).
In this role, the researcher is primarily a data gatherer and does not participate in the activity
being observed. More specifically, as an observer in the classroom I did not interact with the
teachers or students. Instead, I took detailed notes of the physical space and how students and the
teacher used technology. Due to this approach, the reactivity threat was mitigated.
Another concern of qualitative case study research is generalizability. While the current
study was limited to one elementary school in a high performing district, the findings have the
potential to provide a prototype for successful integration and teaching with technology.
Merriam (2009) argued that not only do the rich portraits of phenomenon provide excellent
examples for other programs but that the “general lies in the particular” (pg. 51) in so that much
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 56
of what we learn in a particular case can be transferred to similar situations. This is certainly the
case with the current study that looks at a school where technology is transforming teaching and
learning and identifies the specific pedagogy, climate, and leadership that allowed this to happen.
This is turn, can be used as a roadmap to guide technology integration at other schools.
Furthermore, the current study is part of a larger cohort of qualitative studies focused on
answering similar research questions around the impact of technology. As a whole, the
collection of studies will include eleven school sites, Kindergarten through twelfth grade. Taken
together, the findings of these studies will have a greater degree of generalizability.
Finally, the documents, surveys, observations, interviews, and follow up conversations
with teachers were rich data sources and did provide for the triangulation of research data. Per
Maxwell (2013) it is critical to use triangulation to validate each individual instrument and piece
of data. Working with the thematic dissertation group allowed us to correlate the instruments
and provide enough overlap in each so as to allow for triangulation. Follow up conversations
with teachers regarding surveys, observations, and interviews allowed for the clarification of
discrepancies and gaps in the data. Overall, these practices contributed to a rich, detailed data set
that yielded promising several promising constructs and themes.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is a critical part of any qualitative study. To ensure that a structured and
comprehensive approach was used to analyze data for the current study, Creswell’s spiral of
analysis (2007) was utilized. This approach to data analysis has six steps: (1) gathering of data,
(2) data management, (3) writing, reading, reflecting, and memoing, (4) describing, classifying,
and (5) interpreting, categorizing, and comparing, and (6) representing and visualizing the data.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 57
Using this approach allowed for a systematic and rigorous analysis of the data that resulted in
several interesting and promising findings. These are articulated more fully in the
results/discussion sections of this study.
Per the recommendations of several expert researchers (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009,
Corbin & Strauss, 2008), every effort was made to start data analysis immediately following data
collection. As data was gathered through document analysis and surveys, it was promptly
categorized and organized according to the research questions it answered. Common findings
and themes were noted and assigned names to assist in sorting the data. Observation notes were
reviewed following the observations and pertinent details and notes were expanded upon while
the observation was still proximal. This time was also used to write reflective memos about key
points and ideas that offered insights into the research questions. Audio recordings of the
interviews were reviewed and transcribed as soon as possible so as to assist in the coding of
important information and themes. Throughout this process, per Maxwell (2013), tentative ideas
and recurring themes were noted and tentatively categorized.
Merriam (2009) stated that data must be assigned codes and organized into categories if
there is any chance of analyzing it. Two tools were selected for coding: (1) colored highlighters
and (2) concept mapping. A natural outgrowth of the initial notes and memos was using colored
markers to highlight meaningful ideas and themes across the data sets. Using this “open
coding” technique (Maxwell, 2013) allowed the development of several organizational and
substantive categories. The organizational categories were directly mapped to the research
questions while the substantive categories developed organically based on data about the
participants’ experiences, beliefs, and ideas. A large white board was used to make a concept
map that included the research questions connected by lines to the various categories/themes that
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 58
had emerged from the data. In this way, categories/themes that supported and/or answered the
research questions were identified. Per Merriam (2009) these categories were sensitive,
exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and conceptually congruent.
Ultimately, categories were refined and narrowed and the focus turned to theorizing -
“the cognitive process of discovering or manipulating abstract categories and the relationships
among those categories” (Merriam, 2009, pg.188). The goal at this stage of the analysis was to
move from the concrete data to a more abstract, conceptual overview. This involved finding
meaning within and between the major categories or findings of the study. Inherent to this
theorizing was ensuring that there was adequate evidence in the data to support any possible
explanations or connections between the data and existing conceptual frameworks and research.
The categories and resulting theories derived from them ultimately provided compelling answers
to the stated research questions. These are explored in the results/discussion sections.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 59
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Treatment of Data
To ensure that a structured and comprehensive approach was used to analyze data for the
current study, Creswell’s spiral of analysis (2007) was utilized. This approach to data analysis
had six steps: (1) gathering of data, (2) data management, (3) writing, reading, reflecting, and
memoing, (4) describing, classifying, and (5) interpreting, categorizing, and comparing, and (6)
representing and visualizing the data. Per the recommendations of several expert researchers
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009, Corbin & Strauss, 2008), every effort was made to start data
analysis immediately following data collection. As data was gathered through document
analysis and surveys, it was promptly categorized and organized according to the research
questions it answered. Observation notes were reviewed following the observations and
pertinent details and notes were expanded upon while the observation was still proximal. Audio
recordings of the interviews were reviewed and transcribed within days of the interviews to assist
in the coding of important information and themes.
Merriam (2009) stated that data must be assigned codes and organized into categories if
there is any chance of analyzing it. Two tools were selected for coding: (1) colored highlighters
and (2) concept mapping. A natural outgrowth of the initial notes and memos was using colored
markers to highlight meaningful ideas and themes across the data sets. Using this “open
coding” technique (Maxwell, 2013) allowed the development of several organizational and
substantive categories. The organizational categories were directly mapped to the research
questions while the substantive categories developed organically based on data about the
participants’ experiences, beliefs, and ideas. A large white board was used to make a concept
map that included the research questions connected by lines to the various categories/themes that
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 60
had emerged from the data. In this way, categories/themes that supported and/or answered the
research questions were identified. Per Merriam (2009) these categories were sensitive,
exhaustive, mutually exclusive, and conceptually congruent.
Participant Description
Data was gathered at the research site over a three-month period beginning in September
of 2014 and concluding in November of 2014. During this time, five days were spent at the
research site administering the survey, reviewing school documents, attending staff meetings,
conducting observations of classrooms and other technology oriented school programs,
interviewing teachers and administrators, and observing the culture of the school as a whole. All
certificated staff, including 18 teachers and one principal, responded to the survey. Based on
survey results and conversations with the principal, seven classrooms were observed: three in
fifth grade, three in fourth grade, and one in third grade. These grade levels were currently
participating in the 1:1 iPad program. Kindergarten, first grade, and second grade classroom
were not observed as they were not part of the current 1:1 iPad program. They were, however,
included in the survey in order to best understand the presence, history, and culture of
technology use at the school that led to the implementation of the 1:1 program. Three focus
group interviews were conducted with a total of nine teachers. The focus group interviews were
organized by grade level: third grade teachers, fourth grade teachers, and fifth grade teachers. A
fourth one-on-one interview was conducted with the school principal.
Research Question 1A: What Technology is Present at the School (and in the Classroom)?
Narrative
It is a clear and sunny morning at Ocean View School. The brightly colored buildings
are sprawling and antiquated - reminiscent of many schools built in the second half of the
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 61
twentieth century. However, in the case of Ocean View, the construction belies the powerful,
technology driven learning happening both inside and outside its walls. On a large, grassy field
that fronts the school, over one hundred students jog around a lap course marked with bright
orange cones. As students round each lap, they present a laminated QR code to a parent
volunteer who scans it with an iPhone. Later, these students will compare their total mileage
with their peers on the school running club electronic leaderboard.
The bell rings and students stream down the hallways to their classrooms. As they stream
into the room, chattering and giggling, each of them collects an iPad from the mobile storage cart
and makes their way to their table. The teacher uses the ClassDojo App to virtually award
student behaviors as they get settled. Next, she pulls up the KidBlog website on her SMART
Board and shares a student book report that was posted online the night before. Half a dozen
students have already commented on the report from their computers at home.
Later, the teacher uses the Socrative App to push out a Writer’s Workshop mini-lesson on
“Bold Beginnings”. Once it has been modeled, students open Google Docs and try the technique
in their own writing. They type in a red font so that the teacher can quickly identify their
application of today’s lesson when she opens their shared documents on her computer. For
homework, the students will share their writing with two peers and give and receive two
electronic critiques. Students who finish the assignment early log onto RAZ Kids or IXL Math,
web-based differentiated reading and math programs where they can work at their own pace and
get immediate feedback.
When the lunch bell rings, students eat quickly so they can line up for their turn in the
“Maker Lab” - a classroom run by teacher and parent volunteers where students get to engineer
and reverse engineer technology. No one seems to mind giving up his or her recess time to play
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 62
at engineer. “I love being here,” one second grader shares. “I get to see how things work and
build whatever is in my brain!”
Findings
Ocean View Elementary School is and has been a tech-saturated school for many years.
The staff survey inquired about the presence of four of the most common instructional
technologies in classrooms (computers, document cameras, SMART Boards/projectors, and
iPads) and for how long they have been used in the classroom. For the purpose of this study, the
presence of a SMART Board also indicated the presence of a digital projector since one is
incorporated into the SMART Board system. Nineteen teachers and one principal responded to
the survey. One hundred percent (100%) of respondents indicated that they had computers in the
classroom used for instructional purposes. One hundred percent (100%) had used the computer
for more than one year, 90% for more than two years, and 82% for more than five years. One
hundred percent (100%) of respondents also indicated that they had and used document cameras
in their classrooms. One hundred percent (100%) had used the document cameras for more than
two years, 90% for more than four years, and 82% for more than five years. Similarly, 100% of
teachers stated that they have and use SMART Boards/digital projectors in their classrooms.
One hundred percent (100%) have used SMART Boards for more than two years, 55% for more
than four years, and 33% for more than five years. Finally, 100% of teachers reported that they
have iPads available for teacher and student use. Of these teachers, 100% have integrated iPads
in their classroom for more than one year, 58% for more than two years, and 10% for more than
four years. In summary, all teachers at Ocean View have used iPads for more than one year and
more than half of the teachers have used them for two to three years. The presence of the
technologies indicated in the surveys was confirmed during classroom observations. Additional
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 63
classroom technologies were also noted at this time including televisions, DVD/VCR players,
printers, wireless keyboards, wireless speakers, and audio/voice amplification systems.
In addition to the ubiquitous classroom use of technology, Ocean View teachers reported
that there are many opportunities outside of the classroom for students to use technology. Close
to half (42%) of the teachers indicated that technology is also used in the library and computer
lab. Mobile iPad carts are used to provide class sets of iPads for use in grades K-3. These iPads
are used in the classroom but also used outside of the classroom in other locations such as the
science lab and outdoor learning spaces. There is also a “Maker Lab” (a classroom used to
reverse engineer and build new technologies including circuits, robots, and inventions). This
space is unique in that technology is both used and created by Ocean View students. Technology
is also utilized for the student running club that meets three mornings weekly. The “Stride
Track” system purchased by the school gives students an individual QR code that they can use to
scan and record their mileage when they participate. Finally, Ocean View teachers reported that
their students use technology to a great extent outside of school at home and through
extracurricular activities.
The data gathered indicates that there has been a significant technology presence in
Ocean View Elementary School classrooms for greater than five years. Teachers at this site have
been using technology to deliver content and enhance instruction during this period. This has
made them more comfortable with technology and integrating it with their teaching – including
new technologies. More recently, the pilot of the 1:1 iPad program in 4
th
grade in 2011-12,
followed by the implementation of a 1:1 iPad program in 5
th
grade in 2012-13, and the
subsequent launch of the 1:1 iPad program in 3
rd
grade in 2014-15 has added another level of
technological integration and fluency to the Ocean View campus.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 64
To best understand the integration and use of technology at Ocean View Elementary, it is
useful to understand the past, present, and future efforts around technology at the site. Survey
and interview data indicated that computers, document cameras, and SMART Boards have been
used by the great majority of the staff for greater than five years. This indicates a high degree of
technology usage school wide dating back prior to the arrival of the current principal and the
iPad program. Therefore, teachers at Ocean View were already comfortable and familiar using
technology to enhance teaching and learning dating back to 2010.
The current principal took over leadership at the school in 2010-11, bringing with her the
vision and initiative to pilot the 1:1 iPad program which she had been exposed to at the middle
school. Since this time, the iPad program has expanded each year at Ocean View to the current
year where all 4
th
and 5
th
grade students have 1:1 devices and 3
rd
grade classes share a class set of
iPads on a mobile cart. iPads are also available in K-2 for small group work with students.
Clearly, the principal has been successful in her efforts to move technology acquisition and
integration forward at the school. While the reasons for this will be examined in more detail
later in this section when school leadership and culture are discussed, it would be safe to assume
that the teachers comfort levels with technology based on the school usage history helped make
the this possible.
Looking forward to 2015-16 and beyond, the plan at Ocean View is to purchase
additional iPads, make the third grade classrooms 1:1, and to purchase several MacBook
computers for each Kindergarten through second grade classroom. The “Maker Space” where
students are practicing engineering (and reverse engineering) of technology will continue to
grow, develop, and expand. The principal will continue to advance technology use and
integration through funding, professional development, and individual and team support.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 65
Discussion
The history of technology use at Ocean View, the present 1:1 programs, and the future
vision for continued integration has created a unique environment where technology use and
innovation is encouraged and expected. A significant finding from the data aligned to his
research question was that the widespread use of technology does not happen in one year, or
even three years. The ubiquitous usage of technology at Ocean View School has happened over
almost a decade, ramping up significantly in the past five years. This makes sense considering
that staff needs access, time, and exposure to technology to develop the level of comfort and
expertise needed to use it regularly and effectively in the classroom. This is confirmed by the
fact that staff reported the highest usage of technologies that had been in their classroom the
longest such as computers, document cameras, and SMART Boards. This finding indicates that
schools with a longer history of technology use and integration, regardless of the type of
technology, will be more likely to integrate new technologies and use them in transformative
ways. In contrast, schools that are just beginning to use technology should take the long view and
recognize that a five year plan for acquiring and purchasing technology may be more realistic
and attainable for staff.
Research Question 1B: How is Technology Used as a Tool of Instruction in the Classroom?
Findings
Based on the staff survey and observations, it was clear that Ocean View School had been
successful in overcoming first order barriers, namely access to technology. However, the more
important second order question remained: how was technology being used as a tool of
instruction? Data to answer this question was initially gathered from the staff survey and then
triangulated through classroom observations and interviews. To analyze the results and
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 66
categorize where on the spectrum of “effective technology usage” each of the findings fell, the
SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006) was used. In the SAMR model technology usage is classified
according to four levels: (S)ubstitution – the technology is a direct substitute for a current
classroom activity; (A)ugmentation – the technology adds something extra to the original
activity; (M)odification – the technology is used in ways that significantly redesign the original
tasks; and (R)edefinition – the technology is used to allow students to work in ways not possible
before the technology was present. The four levels of SAMR correspond generally to students
using technology in increasingly higher-level ways that promote deeper leaning and the 4C’s
(collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity). Therefore, the “M” and “R”
levels of SAMR are considered more optimal for student learning and are most closely aligned
with research based best practices in classroom technology usage.
Survey question six asked staff to list the programs, applications, websites, and software
they used in their classroom. All together, 22 different programs, applications, websites, and
types of software were named. Of these, the top five are listed in the chart below with the
percentage of staff that mentioned them in their survey.
Figure 1. Top Five Technology Applications as Reported By Teachers
020 40 60 80 100
Edmodo
RAZ Kids
Brain Pop
MS Office
IXL Math
% Reporting Usage
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 67
IXL Math was used by 79% of teachers. IXL math is a web-based, differentiated math
program that incorporates mini-lessons, math fluency, problem solving, formative feedback, and
summative assessment. It also boasts a robust teacher management system where individual
student progress on state standards can be assessed and tracked. Students use computers or iPads
to access their personalized accounts on IXL. In terms of the SAMR model, IXL is a good
example of a modification (M). It flips traditional whole group math instruction on its head,
allowing for individualized and differentiated content, self paced learning, and regular, targeted
assessment that is automatically used to adjust the level of instruction.
Microsoft Office was used by 43% of teachers. It is interesting to see that MS Office was
a still a staple in almost half of the classrooms, particularly with the recent availability of many
free web-based word processing solutions. The primary function of MS Office in Ocean View
classrooms was, not surprisingly, word processing for student writing. However, there was also
the use of PowerPoint for student presentations in the areas of social studies and science. In
general, MS Office classifies as a substitution (S) on the SAMR scale. It primarily just replaces
handwriting (Word) and poster boards (PowerPoint) in terms of documenting and sharing student
work.
BrainPop and RAZ kids were also highly utilized web-based tools by teachers at Ocean
View. BrainPop, a web-based site offering engaging, cartoon-like instructional videos on a
variety of academic subjects, was used in 43% of classrooms. BrainPop is a good example on an
augmentation (A) used to add a little bit more to the traditional lessons via engaging content
specific videos. However, it does not in anyway transform the learning environment or the
traditional tasks students would be asked to complete after viewing the video. RAZ Kids, on the
other hand, is similar to IXL Math in that it offers students a web-based, adaptive program that
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 68
tracks student progress (albeit this time in reading) through ongoing formative assessment. It
also offers targeted reading selections based on student levels and allows the teacher to view
student data and prescribe appropriate lessons based on identified needs. As such, RAZ Kids is
also a modification (M) on the SAMR scale.
The web-based application that rounded off the top five was Edmodo. Edmodo is an
educational social network used by teachers and students. Once a classroom has been
established on the site, teachers and students can use it to communicate with one another,
comment on posts by group members, share files, submit work, and even take tests. As a virtual
classroom, Edmodo classifies as a redefinition (R) due to the fact that is allows teachers and
students to interact in ways not possible in the traditional classroom.
In summary, of the top five programs, applications, websites, and software used in Ocean
View classrooms, one was a substitution, one was an augmentation, two were modifications, and
one was a redefinition. This means that 80% of the most commonly used technology based
learning tools are enhancing traditional classroom activities and that 60% of them either
significantly redesigning traditional tasks and/or creating brand new forms of learning that were
never possible before the technology came to Ocean View. This is a positive indicator that, at
least at Ocean View School, technology usage is finally living up to its long unfulfilled promise
to transform traditional teaching and learning practices. In this case, by making them much more
individualized, self-paced, data driven, and engaging.
These findings were further substantiated in classroom observations and during teacher
interviews. The following matrix uses the SAMR model to categorize all the technology-based
learning activities observed in the classroom or shared by teachers during the interviews. Each
kind of activity is given a count (N) for its total number of occurrences.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 69
Table 1
Technology-Based Learning Activities Organized by SAMR
Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition
• Use of Pages/Word
for student word
processing.
• Use of Quizlet for
studying/review.
• Use of BrainPop and
TED learning videos.
• Use of web-based
WorldyWise program.
• Use of Notability App
to takes notes and
audio recordings of
digital documents.
• Use of Keynote and
Powerpoint to create
digital slide
presentations.
• Using SMART
Boards to share and
model student
writing/math
strategies.
• Use of Spelling City
to digitalize spelling
lists and provide
games for practice.
• Use of Socratic for
independent
practice/feedback.
• Use of IXL for self-
paced, differentiated
math instruction.
• Use of RAZ Kids for
self-paced,
differentiated reading
instruction.
• Use of Google Earth
to find and view
locations around the
world.
• Use of the internet to
conduct research that
includes text, pictures,
and video.
• Using audio recording
to record reading and
writing and share with
others.
• Use of QR codes to
share digital
information.
• Using multimedia to
“layer” instruction so
that students are
exposed to concepts in
multiple ways (text,
images, video, audio).
• Use of KidBlog for
book reports/peer
feedback.
• Use of Google Docs
for writing/peer and
teacher feedback.
• Use of Google Docs
to share learning
across
schools/countries.
• Use of Edmodo for
collaboration,
communication, and
assessment.
• Use of Educreations
to create interactive
multimedia
presentations about
learning.
• Using Creative Book
Builder App to
document learning in
a digital book to be
shared with peers.
• Keeping online
portfolios of student
work including texts,
images, video, and
audio.
• Using teacher videos
and online videos
(Khan Academy) to
“flip” the classroom.
• Using technology to
pursue student
research interests
during “Genius
Hour”.
N=1 N=7 N=8 N=9
Altogether, this data set captures 25 different technology-based learning activities
occurring in Ocean View classrooms. Of the 25 observed or shared by teachers, 96% of them
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 70
are activities where technology has enhanced or transformed the learning to a certain degree.
More telling is that 68% of the activities enhanced or transformed the learning substantially and
more than one third (36%) of the activities qualified as redefinitions of learning - working in
completely new ways that were not possible before technology. Only 4% of the activities
qualified as substitutions and these were basic word processing applications like Pages and
Word. Clearly, when technology is being used in Ocean View classrooms, it is primarily being
used in transformative ways that were not possible in the traditional, non-technology classroom.
This understanding leads directly to another important question: how regularly are these
technologies being used in the classrooms?
Technology usage at Ocean View was analyzed using a survey response item requesting
teachers to indicate how frequently they used the four major technology items: computers,
document cameras, SMART Boards, and iPads. Computers, the longest available technology at
the school, were used by 90% of teachers every day in their classrooms. There were two
teachers, however, that indicated that they never used computers in their classroom. Similarly,
document cameras were used by 95% of teacher every day in their classrooms with one teacher
indicating that she never used them. SMART Boards were the most used item with 100% of
teachers indicating that they used them every day.
The use of iPads in the classroom fell along the lines of the 1:1 deployment of iPads to
the grade levels. Overall, 79% of teachers indicated that they use iPads at least once a week as
an instructional tool. The 21% of teachers that don’t use iPads were, overwhelming, in
Kindergarten and 1
st
grade. Of the teachers that used iPads, 58% indicated that they use them
once a week and 42% reported that they used them every day. Interestingly, there was no group
that used them 2-3 times a week. It was either once a week or every day. The 42% that used
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 71
iPads every day were the teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grade. Third grade has access to a
grade level set of iPads on a mobile cart and fourth and fifth grades are 1:1 iPad classrooms.
These results indicate that multiple instructional technologies are used at Ocean View
School by almost all teachers on any given day. However, the regular and routine use of iPads is
more limited to grades 3-5 where they have deployed the 1:1 program. It follows then that these
students would have more regular opportunities to use technology in transformative ways than
students in the lower grades. This is the typical case at the elementary school level as the use of
technology requires a certain level of independence and technological fluency that younger
students may not be ready for. This fact was validated in teacher interviews where the tradeoff
between learning to use the technology and actually using it to learn was mentioned several
times. For less mature students, the extended time it took to learn to use the technology often
proved subtractive to learning whereas the older students could more readily use the technology
to enhance and extend their learning.
Discussion
A significant finding from the data aligned to this research question was that new,
differentiated, web-based programs and applications have helped realize the long-standing
potential of technology to be used in transformative ways to enhance student learning. It is only
in the past five years that web-based programs such as IXL and RAZ Kids have been available to
differentiate math and reading instruction. Nor is the selection limited to these programs, a host
of these types of online learning resources now exist to teachers including the robust Khan
Academy and Achieve3000 reading resource. While learning software is not a new concept and
has been around for decades, what is new is that it is available online (from school and home),
that is adaptive and differentiated for each student, and that it provides teachers with ongoing
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 72
data on each student tied to standards. In other words, learning software has become much more
robust, useful, and user-friendly for teachers – this has made a difference in the classroom.
Similarly, the expansion of cloud storage, file sharing, and social networks have created
new digital learning opportunities for students and teachers more aligned to the highest SAMR
levels. Apps such as Google’s Drive offer a place for students to store and edit digital files,
individually or collectively. They also offer opportunities for teachers and other students to
provide timely, targeted feedback. Educational social networks such as Edmodo provide this
function with the added benefit of real time quizzing and collaboration. The emergence of these
platforms over the past five years has had an important impact on the transformative power of
technology. Whereas computer use has traditionally been aligned with substitution and
augmentation activities such as word processing and research, these new platforms allow for
learning activities that allow for modification and redefinition to a much greater extent.
Research Question 2: What is the Perceived Impact of the Technology on Teaching and
Learning?
Narrative
It’s Friday after lunch at Ocean View School and that means that it’s “Genius Hour” in
Mrs. K.’s 5
th
grade classroom. Roughly based on Google’s fabled “20% Time” where
employees are given one day a week to pursue an innovation that they are personally passionate
about, Genius Hour gives Ocean View 5
th
grade students the opportunity to use technology to
pursue and develop their own interests. First, Mrs. K. works with the students and their iPads to
build a strong foundation in digital literacy, research skills, and innovative thinking using online
sources such as Ted-Ed and Discovery Learning. Next, students are guided through a series of
activities to help them narrow and define their projects, situate them in a meaningful real world
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 73
context, and identify resources and materials they will need. Finally, the students are cut loose
for an hour each week to pursue and develop their ideas.
On this particular Friday, halfway through the project phase, students are engaged in a
wide range of activities: conducting digital research and taking detailed notes, making technical
drawings using an interactive whiteboard App, creating iMovies to share their findings, and
communicating virtually with experts in the fields they are studying. In three weeks, each
student will be required to share his or her Genius Hour project with the class and be scored
against a collaboratively developed rubric. The students are engaged and highly motivated - the
atmosphere more akin to a high tech start up than an elementary school classroom.
Findings
When interviewed, the Ocean View principal shared that her vision for technology
learning at the school was about redefinition and not substitution, about collaboration not
isolation, about students creating not consuming, about technology being invisible instead of
being something pulled out for a flashy project. The survey, observation, and interview data
gathered at Ocean View indicates that the principal is both right and wrong. As it turns out,
technology in its current manifestation is such a powerful transformative tool that its impact on
the classroom is exponential and results in outcomes that neither teachers nor administrators
could conceive of. In short, technology in schools can solve many education related problems,
but it can also create some new ones. Both the positive and negative impacts of technology at
Ocean View are explored in the following section.
Positive Impacts of Technology
Overwhelmingly, the teaching staff at Ocean View indicated that technology has had a
positive impact on their teaching and student learning. When asked their perspective on whether
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 74
or not technology has had a positive impact on teaching, 100% of teachers at Ocean View agreed
that it had (even the teacher who reported not using technology in her classroom). Sixty-three
percent (63%) indicated that they believed technology had had a strong positive impact on
teaching. In a related question, 95% of the teachers disclosed that technology has improved their
ability to instruct and manage students in their classrooms. There were no teachers who
indicated that the use of technology had been detrimental to teaching and learning.
Survey question thirteen went deeper still, getting at the specific impacts of technology
on a variety of student factors. Figure 2 below details teacher responses to this question.
Figure 2. Teachers Perspectives on the Impact of Technology on Students
Interestingly, 100% of teachers indicated a belief that technology positively impacts creativity
and promotes student collaboration. This stands in opposition to a popular anti-technology
sentiment that it decreases creativity and leads to student isolation. However, this would also
depend on how the technology is being used and for what purpose. While the teachers felt less
strongly about collaboration (37% - A Lot) than creativity (63% - A Lot) it is clear that they all
believe that technology has a positive impact in these areas.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Increase Achievement
Increases Engagement
Promotes Collaboration
Positively Impacts Creativity
A Lot
Somewhat
Not at All
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 75
The results for increased student engagement were not surprising at 100%. This is often
cited as one of the biggest pluses for technology use. We know that the current generation of
“digital natives” has grown up with technology and is highly enthusiastic and adept when using
it. In fact, the surprising result here is that only 63% reported that it was “A Lot”. Classroom
observations of students using technology did contradict this finding as close to 100% of students
were found to be very engaged when using technology – some to the point of distraction.
Finally, 100% of teachers reported that classroom technology use has increased student
achievement. More than one third of the teachers, thirty-seven percent (37%), particularly
teachers of the 1:1 iPad program, felt strongly about this. This is an interesting result
considering the high achieving nature of the students at Ocean View and the community that
they reside in. Although the teachers and students have been highly successful in terms of
student achievement with traditional instructional methods, they indicate that technology is
making the students even more successful. The reasons for this will be examined as the
classroom observations are analyzed for examples of how technology is transforming teaching
and learning.
Classroom observation and interviews served to validate survey data indicating that
Ocean View students are creative, collaborative, engaged, and achieving at high levels.
Observation notes and interview transcripts were coded and frequency counts were made of
examples of ways that technology was transforming the teaching and learning in the classrooms.
From those counts, ten major shifts were identified. Those ten shifts will be identified and
discussed. These shifts include (1) increased student engagement; (2) more opportunities for
differentiation; (3) new forms of collaboration; (4) students are better able to demonstrate depth
of knowledge (DOK); (5) improved teacher efficiency; (6) improved student efficiency; (7)
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 76
increased use of formative and summative assessments and targeted, timely feedback; (8)
improved digital literacy and research skills; (9) more opportunities for students who learn
differently; and (10) the changing roles of the teacher and student in a technology enhanced
classroom.
(1) Increased student engagement. The most frequent shift observed in technology-saturated
learning environments was the high level of student engagement with technology. As previously
mentioned, this generation of students is the first to be raised in our current technology driven
society. Their affinity for technology is tangible and their ability to use it effectively and
efficiently is unparalleled. When directed by teachers to use the technology, whether for an
interactive classroom activity, a web-based program, or a writing or research assignment,
students immediately began the task and diligently followed the instructions given by the
teacher. In most cases, the teacher was almost immediately freed up to work with individual
students (unless, of course, there were tech hardware issues which will be discussed later in this
section). Moreover, students were self-motivated and needed very little redirection once they
were engaged with a technology based task. They did, however, require guidance but this can be
categorized as on-task help rather than off-task help. Contrast this to the traditional classroom
where a teacher is often required to reengage students in the task because they are unmotivated
or distracted and would rather be engaged in off task activities. This was not often the case when
technology was used in the classroom.
(2) More opportunities for differentiation. Differentiation of student learning via technology
was also a frequently observed shift in Ocean View classrooms. This happened at two levels: (1)
the use of technology freed the teacher up to work with small groups/individuals and (2)
interactive web-based programs were utilized to offer differentiated, self-paced content to
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 77
students working independently. One benefit of 1:1 devices in the classroom and high levels of
student engagement was that it freed the teacher up to work with small groups and individual
students. It has traditionally been challenging for a teacher to teach a small group because he or
she is frequently interrupted to redirect the students working independently. In the 1:1
classrooms, the teacher almost never had to divert her attention away from the small group or
individual she was working with due to the level of engagement the independent students had
with the technology. This allowed for much more effective small group and individualized
instruction.
Students working independently were similarly serviced through interactive, web-based
math and reading programs such as IXL Math and RAZ Kids. These programs offered them
leveled, self-paced content in an engaging and interactive format. Both programs not only
offered content to students but also provided clear, easily accessible progress reports to the
teachers on student time spent on the program, proficiency levels, and progress towards grade
level standards and benchmarks. Based on these results, it would appear that the age old
promise of technology to allow for the differentiation of learning has finally been realized in
productive and well organized 1:1 classrooms.
(3) New forms of collaboration. A major shift reported by all participants and observed in the
classrooms was the emergence of new kinds of student collaboration within the classroom,
between school and home, and even between other schools and countries. An excellent example
of this is how the 4
th
and 5
th
grade classrooms at Ocean View use KidBlog and Google Apps for
reading and writing. In one classroom, KidBlog was used as a recording site for student book
reports. Following clear guidelines for the book reports, students were required to post a weekly
report to the class blog and give feedback on at least three other books reports posted by peers.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 78
In this way, the traditional weekly book report was transformed into an online community of
readers, authors, and critics. As the teacher stated: “If you are looking for a good book to read,
you need look no further than our blog to find out what is hot and what is not!”
A second, even more powerful, example was the use of Google Apps to conduct all
classroom writing assignments. Students were required to write in a certain color font each day
so that the new writing could be easily identified by the teacher and peers. This writing was
saved in the Google cloud (online). For homework, peers were required to log in from home,
access the writing of three classmates, and provide targeted feedback. All of this was easily
monitored by the teacher via her administrative account. This same technique (using Google
Apps) was used to share writing/feedback between schools within the district and even with a
school in Saskatchewan, Canada. Truly, in this case, Ocean View students were writing not just
for themselves or their teacher, but for a global audience.
(4) Students are better able to demonstrate depth of knowledge (DOK). Another common
shift noted through observations and interviews was that the use of technology provided students
with more comprehensive and effective ways to demonstrate their learning and depth of
knowledge. In a traditional classroom setting, a student’s learning is most often measured via a
pencil and paper assessment, generally in multiple choice or short answer format. These kinds of
tests are designed to measure depth of knowledge (DOK) levels (Webb, 2002) aligned to level
one (recall and reproduction) and level two (skills/concepts/basic reasoning), the lowest two
levels of cognitive rigor. In the technology infused classrooms at Ocean View, students used
technology to demonstrate their learning in much deeper ways corresponding to the level three
(strategic thinking) and level four (extended thinking) quadrants of the DOK.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 79
Some examples of this phenomenon included students using iMovie to construct movies
that incorporated text, images, and video to explain and draw conclusions about a concept.
Interactive whiteboards such as Explain Everything and Educreations were also used by students
to share their thinking in text, pictures, and images. Students first created the slides, then voiced
over them, and finally shared them with classmates in their class and throughout the world via
the internet. One group of students used Educreations to compare and contrast different strategies
for multiplication – each student recorded a strategy and their argument for why it was the most
effective and efficient. These kinds of demonstrations of knowledge place higher cognitive
demands on the students and are more useful to teachers as diagnostic tools because they are
provide a more comprehensive picture what students do and do not understand.
(5) Improved teacher efficiency. Another important shift identified during data collection was
that technology used in classrooms had the potential to increase teacher efficiency. The use of
Google Apps for student writing is a good example of this. After a mini lesson was given on
writing, students did their writing via their computers/iPads in the Google Apps word processor
that exists in the cloud. As the administrator, the teacher had access to all the student files and
quickly went in (at school or at home) and reviewed the student writing and offered feedback.
To make this process even more efficient, students color coded their writing to match the mini-
lesson for the day. This way, the teacher could go directly to the writing for that specific day
(rather than the whole story or essay) and offer feedback and suggestions.
The web-based learning programs that offer teacher dashboards to monitor student
progress also increase teacher efficiency. Both IXL and RAZ Kids keep detailed records of
student time spent and progress towards specific math and reading standards. Teachers can
quickly review student progress on their administrative dashboard and assign specific levels or
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 80
tasks to students (remedial or accelerated) with the click of a button. When the student next logs
on to the program, they begin their revised and more targeted content immediately. These types
of robust learning systems allow teachers to efficiently differentiate content using real time
formative assessment data. This is something that was not possible in the traditional classroom.
(6) Improved student efficiency. Students were also found to be made more efficient by using
technology in the classroom. Word processing is an obvious example. Instead of rewriting an
entire essay by hand, students can quickly make the edits they need in a digital document. In
addition, using Google Apps solves one of the age-old problems of teaching writing: getting
novice writers regular, targeted feedback from the teacher and peers. Since feedback is easily
facilitated through the shared, digital document, students get more timely feedback and are
therefore able to make more edits (i.e. more progress) with their writing.
Similar to teachers, student efficiency is also improved by use web-based, adaptive
learning programs like IXL and RAZ Kids. Traditional math would have a child complete
twenty division problems of the same type, regardless of whether he has got them all correct or
all wrong. Adaptive learning programs are constantly assessing a student’s fluency with a
particular problem type and either offering remediation (easier problems or a tutorial) or moving
the student forward to new and more challenging problems. This kind of real time monitoring
and adapting keeps students learning in their Zone of Proximal Development or ZPD (Vygotsky,
1978) more consistently. Research indicates that when students work in this zone, they learn and
achieve at accelerated rates.
(7) Increased use of formative assessments and targeted, timely feedback. For the reasons
discussed previously, there was a significant increase in the number of real-time formative
assessments administered to students in technology driven classrooms. The data compiled from
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 81
these assessments was then used to provide timely feedback and differentiated instruction at a
much greater rate possible than in traditional classrooms. There is no shortage of research
(Hattie, 2013) stressing the importance of regular, formative assessment and timely, targeted
feedback. It is well documented that when this happens, students learn more and reach higher
levels of achievement. However, this has always been challenging in the traditional classroom
where one teacher had to grade up to thirty five tests, provide meaningful written feedback to
each student based on their results, and return the results and feedback to students in a timely
manner. The right technology paired with the right software can now assume a large share of
this burden, allowing teachers to quickly and efficiently deliver feedback to students.
In addition to web-based programs, teachers used a variety of Apps to gather real time
assessment data during instruction. In one classroom at Ocean View, the teacher asked students
to correctly punctuate a sentence she displayed on the SMART Board. Students used the
Socrative Student App on their iPads to write and submit the sentences to the teacher. The
teacher quickly reviewed the student sentences as they came up on her Socrative Teacher App.
Then she used the data from this to create a mini lesson on using quotation marks – all within a
ten minute period. In addition to Socrative, there are many student response Apps including
ClassDojo, eClicker, and Nearpod that allow teachers to gather real time information on student
learning so they can quickly adapt their lessons to meet the needs of students. This was
demonstrated to be a powerful way to evaluate, direct, and accelerate student learning.
(8) Improved research and digital literacy skills. Another significant shift in the technology
infused classrooms at Ocean View was the emphasis on teaching and conducting research and
developing students’ digital literacy skills. In 75% of the classrooms observations, students were
required to access web sites via technology to conduct research on a variety of topics including
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 82
wild animals, biomes, infectious disease, westward expansion, and other areas tied to grade level
standards. Research included reading text, culling images, and watching videos while taking
detailed notes about what was learned.
During interviews, teachers reported that a great deal of thought and planning was given
to identifying appropriate web sites and videos that students could access via the classroom
technology. They were careful to use websites that were appropriate to the students’ level in
terms of reading level and content. Teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grades reported that
teaching students how to conduct internet research and take notes was a critical part of using
technology in the classroom effectively. Explicitly teaching digital literacy skills, including how
to evaluate an online source, cyber-safety, and cyber-etiquette, was considered a non-negotiable
by teachers, particularly in the 1:1 classrooms in fourth and fifth grade.
(9) More opportunities for students who learn differently. One interesting shift mentioned by
teachers at every interview was that using technology was beneficial to students who learn
differently. More specifically, it allowed these students to stand out and express themselves in
ways that were not possible in a traditional classroom. Several teachers mentioned that there
were students in their general education classrooms who struggled with traditional learning in
math or English-language arts. However, when it came to using the technology (in this case an
iPad) to access and share their learning, they stood out in a very positive way. Some students
were experts at a certain App like iMovie, others seemed to know a lot about wireless networks
and took on a tech assistant role in the classroom. The impact on these students was remarkable
in terms of their increased motivation and engagement with learning.
Teachers also reported improved outcomes for students with learning deficits and
disabilities. Students with fine motor control issues who struggled greatly with their
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 83
handwriting were much more successful typing or using a dictation tool such as the Dragon
Dictation App. Students who were challenged in the area of executive functioning were found
to be much more organized and accountable when using the iPads. This finding was also self-
reported from students who felt for the first time that they could keep track of their assignments
because they were all in one place. Technology then has important, perhaps unforeseen,
benefits for non-traditional classroom learners and can allow for greater motivation and access
to learning content.
(10) The Changing roles of the teacher and student in a technology enhanced classroom.
A final significant shift that was noted in the technology driven classrooms at Ocean View was
the changing role of the teacher and students. In the interviews, many teachers spoke to the
critical importance of the teacher in the technology enhanced classroom, but also shared how
the role of the teacher had changed. Instead of the teacher being the one up in front delivering
information (the “Sage on the Stage”), the teacher’s role became more of an organizer and
planner of learning beforehand and then a facilitator during the learning (a “Guide on the
Side”). Many teachers spoke of having to relinquish their traditional role where they knew all
the answers and were always in control of the classroom. Instead, in the technology infused
classroom, teachers and students were often learning and troubleshooting together. An
increased amount of student talk was also reported and many teachers shared that they often
learned new information and methods from students - particularly in the domain of using the
technology effectively and efficiently.
This is very reminiscent of what Freire (1993) described as a “problem posing”
environment where teachers and students worked together as equals to learn and solve problems.
This model stands in contrast to the traditional “banking model” of education (teachers deposit,
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 84
students are receptacles). In 100% of the observations at Ocean View when technology was
present, teachers were observed playing the role of a facilitator and co-learner in the classroom.
This is striking considering how often many teachers still rely on direct instruction in traditional
classrooms. Perhaps, the presence of such a powerful learning tool demands that teachers release
and students assume more responsibility for the learning. Perhaps technology has finally become
affordable, ubiquitous, and smart enough to make these kinds of powerful, constructivist aligned
learning environments possible.
Negative Impacts of Technology
In addition to the positive shifts in teaching and learning found at Ocean View,
observations and interviews also offered several concerns and drawbacks of technology
integration in the classroom. The most common negatives observed and noted during interviews
included technology not functioning correctly and a lack of tech support, students being
distracted, lacking self-monitoring skills, and independence, and a disconnect with parents who
lack technology skills and have different expectations about what school “looks like” based on
their own experiences. Each of these issues will be briefly explained to provide a more accurate
picture of the affordances and constraints of technology.
Overall, the largest negative associated with technology use in the classroom was that it
didn’t always work the way it was supposed to. This issue was associated with hardware such
as the school wireless network, classroom computers, iPads, and printers as well as with web-
based applications and programs. Teachers reported that in a 1:1 classroom, a problem with the
wireless network could derail an entire lesson. Likewise, individual student issues with iPads
including malfunctions, password issues, and spotty connectivity could easily consume teacher
time as they moved frantically from one student to the next attempting to trouble shoot tech
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 85
issues. These problems were further complicated by the lack of onsite tech support. When tech
problems inevitably arose, teachers had to submit a work order and wait for the school district to
respond. This could take several days and even up to a week. Many teachers reported that
having onsite tech support would be a huge benefit to them as teachers and student learning in
their classrooms.
Teachers also reported, albeit to a lesser extent, that technology could be addicting and
distracting to some students. Many named a particular child in their class that was consistently
drawn to the device during times when technology supposed to be put away. Another somewhat
common problem was for students to be using applications during class that were not part of the
assignment. In all cases, teachers reported that classrooms expectations for technology use and
strong classroom management were critical to ameliorating these issues.
Another related issue was student’s inability to self monitor their technology usage and
be able to work independently on their assigned programs. For example, instead of doing the
needed research on their device and then moving into a digital writing piece, students might
waste time looking at additional websites or content. Teachers also found that when given
technology driven assignments, not all students, particularly those in the younger grades, had the
independent work skills needed to complete those tasks successfully. This was less of an issue in
fifth grade but teachers at that level still saw a wide range in students’ ability to work
independently using technology.
Finally, teachers at all grade levels shared that there was sometimes a disconnect with
parents when technology was used for assignments, particularly for less tech-savvy parents who
had been out of the workplace for several years. For example, parents used to seeing spelling
tests come home each week had questions about the use of “Spelling City”, a web-based spelling
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 86
supplement that eliminated the need for traditional classroom tests. Other parents were confused
that the writing was corrected and assigned feedback online rather than sent home for editing and
rewriting. Parents were also concerned about other tech-related issues like the amount of “screen
time” students had at school, cyber-bulling, and the decrease of handwriting and cursive skills
taught and used in the classroom. Teachers and administrators agreed that these issues were best
addressed through ongoing parent information opportunities including classroom “Tech Nights”
and technology related newsletters.
Discussion
A significant finding from the data aligned to his research question was that, when used
effectively, current technology has the power to transform teaching and learning in new and
powerful ways. These outcomes include increased student engagement, more opportunities for
differentiation, more efficient learning, regular use of formative assessments and data, more
powerful opportunities for students to sharing their learning, and the shifting of tradition teaching
and learning roles towards a more constructivist learning environment where all participants are
teachers and learners simultaneously. Of course, these outcomes are contingent on many factors
including teacher skill and expertise with the use of technology as well as the number of devices
being used in a classroom. The positive outcomes above are most noticeable in classrooms
where a 1:1 ratio of devices to students is present as it is the regular availability of the
technological tool that makes these outcomes possible.
Also important is that the widespread use of technology in classrooms is not without
challenges. Despite almost a decade of use, as well as district and school support, hardware
issues continue to be a challenge at Ocean View. Students engagement can easily become
student distraction without careful monitoring and some students lack the independence to
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 87
complete work on their own (at least at the elementary level). There is also a disconnect with
some parents who lack the technology skills and information to understand what teaching and
learning looks like in the technology enhanced classroom. All of these issues can be addressed
and ameliorated; however, any one of them has the potential to derail the learning (and possibly
the technology program) at a school site. Therefore, it is critical that the school culture and
leadership be proactive about addressing them.
Research Question 3A: How Does the School Climate Support the Integration of
Technology?
Narrative
It is Wednesday afternoon and the Ocean View staff has gathered for their monthly
meeting in their multipurpose room. The PTA has laid out a lavish feast including finger foods
and build-your-own root beer floats to show their appreciation for all that the teachers do. The
principal calls the meeting to order and then almost immediately turns over the stage to a fourth
grade teacher who shares a novel way that she is using the Educreations App in her classroom.
Several teachers join the conversation and a lively discussion about the best student uses of the
interactive whiteboard application follows. When this wraps up, the school Technology Aide
shares a presentation on some of the new websites she has identified for teaching computer
programming or ‘coding’ to students. This generates a positive buzz amongst the staff. Later,
the principal shares out information on the new Maker Lab and her vision for its use at the school
including getting more girls interested in STEM. One of the mantras the principal repeats
throughout the meeting is that she wants staff to “feel safe and supported”. It becomes clear that
this is very important to her and a cornerstone of the relationship and trust that she has built with
the school staff.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 88
Findings
Research indicates that school climate can have a significant impact on whether or not
technology is integrated at a school (Bitner & Bitner, 2002; Buckenmeyer, 2010; Ertmer, 1999,
2010, 2012; Inan & Lowther, 2010). The data gathered at Ocean View through surveys,
interviews, and observations confirms this assertion but also reveals some possible
misconceptions and surprising findings about the role of culture in technology use and
integration. This section will look specifically at teacher demographics, experience, and
proficiency with technology. It will also examine the availability and effectiveness of various
forms of professional development and their impact of technology integration. In summary, the
TPACK model will be used as a lens to discuss the essential characteristics of teachers who are
successful at reaching the “sweet spot” of technology integration. This is where the three
domains of technology knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge intersect to
create optimal technology enhanced learning experiences for students.
Survey data revealed that Ocean View teachers are experienced, proficient with
technology, and feel confident about integrating it in their classrooms. Ninety-five percent
(95%) of the teachers are over the age of thirty and 100% of them have been teaching for more
six years (70% for more than ten years). Clearly, the staff at Ocean View is very experienced
with decades upon decades of combined teaching experience. More importantly, the majority of
the teachers (80%) have been at Ocean View for more than five years, allowing the formation of
a strong, cohesive team. Grade level teams were also stable with less than 25% of teaching
reporting a change of grade level in the past five years.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 89
When asked about their proficiency with technology in regards to the most commonly
used classroom technologies, the teachers reported the following skill levels:
Figure 3. Teacher Proficiency with Classroom Technology
Not surprisingly, the teachers’ perceived proficiency with technology was correlated with the
length of time the technology had been used in their classrooms. Ninety percent (90%) of
teachers indicated that they were proficient or advanced with computers and document cameras.
This made sense given their longevity in the classrooms and ease of use. Proficiency with the
SMART Board was at 79%. This lower comfort level also made sense considering that the
SMART Board is a much more complicated piece of technology to use in the classroom. Finally
iPad proficiency came in at 68% proficient and advanced. This result tended to fall along grade
level lines with the upper grades (3-5) reporting high proficiency and the lower grades (K-2) a
decreased level of comfort. These results were illustrative of the fact that the 1:1 iPad program
currently exists in the upper grades. Overall, Ocean View teachers reported a high level of
proficiency and personal comfort with using technology in their classrooms. This was clearly a
contributing factor to or a direct result of the pro-technology culture that existed at the school.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
iPad
SMART Board
Document Camera
Computers
% Reporting Out as Proficient and
Advanced Users
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 90
In order to better understand how teachers developed high levels of proficiency with
using technology at Ocean View, the survey asked teachers to identify influential factors in
shaping how technology was used in their classrooms. The results are documented in the figure
below.
Figure 4. Influential Factors Shaping Classroom Technology Use
Figure 4 indicates that all of these factors are important and influential in using technology in
the classroom with more than 82% of teachers acknowledging this in all categories. The factors
teachers found most influential were personal skill with technology and opportunities to
collaborate with their peers around technology with 45% of teachers marking these as “Very
Influential”. That personal skill is a significant factor is not surprising given the existing
research in this area. Many teachers reported in interviews that they spent countless hours of
additional time outside of school learning the technology and developing proficiency with it.
What was surprising is that interview data revealed that many of the teachers in fourth and fifth
grade were not skilled with technology before they launched their 1:1 programs. Instead, they
recognized it was a direction they needed to go (based on student, parent, and administrative
55%
55%
37%
55%
36%
45%
45%
36%
0% 50% 100%
School Culture Around
Technology Use
Personal Skill with Technology
Opportunities to Collaborate
with Peers Around Technology
Use
Professional Devleopment on
Technology Use
Influential
Very Influential
Not Influential
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 91
input) and made it personal priority to become proficient in technology use. Therefore, the
assertion that great technology teachers have always had an affinity for technology is not always
true. Instead, great teachers recognize the value of technology and learn to use it to enhance
their teaching and learning regardless of their prior experiences with technology.
Teachers valuing time to collaborate with peers around technology was also highly
reported in the interviews. Many teachers stated that this was the single most important factor
effecting successful technology integration. One teacher shared that, “Working together as a
team was the key. We would all learn things and then immediately share it out. That kept
raising the level of integration. This is a major reason why we are where we are today with
tech.” This was validated through observations at staff and grade level meetings where teacher
talk about technology was consistently noted.
Teachers also reported that professional development was a significant factor influencing
technology integration in their classrooms. Based on the survey, 95% of teachers have had more
than one technology related professional development experience in the past two years. 47%
have had more than three technology related professional development experiences, and 26%
have had more than five professional development experiences. Part of the reason for this high
volume of professional development around technology was the district wide push for the 1:1
iPad pilot program in 2011-12. As part of the agreement for schools to pilot the 1:1 program,
teachers had to agree to monthly professional development around iPad use in the classroom.
This professional development lasted through the first two years of the launch and included
“Appy Hours” where teachers would get together after work and share successful uses of iPads
and applications. The teachers who participated in this initial professional development felt they
learned a lot and were well prepared to use the technology in their classrooms. However,
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 92
eventually the district turned its professional development focus to other areas and teachers
coming into the 1:1 program in the last two years have felt significantly less supported.
Despite the pull back in district technology related professional development, 76% of
teachers at Ocean View have attended training on iPads in the past three years and 59% have
attended the technology focused CUE conference that occurs annually in the spring. Overall, the
staff named nineteen different kinds of professional development that they had attended over the
past three years. What this indicates is that overall, particularly in comparison to other schools
and districts, Ocean View has had a large and diverse number of technology related professional
developments available to its staff on an ongoing basis. More specifically, that the focus on this
professional development has been on using iPads and effective teaching with technology. This
has had a positive effect on the knowledge level of the staff and on their comfort and proficiency
with using technology.
Two other interesting factors impacting teacher integration of technology were the
presence of a district technology coach and positive pressure from students, parents, and the
principal. In 100% of the interviews, teachers mentioned a former school teacher who was now
a “Teacher on Special Assignment” (TOSA) at the district level. The TOSA assignment, in this
case, was to coach teachers on the integration of technology in their classrooms. Ocean View
teachers found the technology TOSA position very valuable both in terms of sharing new
strategies to use technology in the classroom and providing modeling of these techniques in the
classroom. One third grade teacher remarked that “Everything I do in the classroom with
technology I learned from [TOSA]. She did all the prep and field testing for me which made it
much easier for me to just use it.”
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 93
All teachers also mentioned that the expectation to use technology was pervasive at their
school. Students expected it based on their home use. The PTA had purchased the iPads and
therefore wanted teachers to use them with students. The principal made it clear that using
technology in the classrooms was a high priority. Based on this expectation of use, the teachers
worked hard on their own time and as a team to find meaningful ways to use the technology in
their classrooms with students.
Returning to the TPACK model for technology integration, it is clear based on the data
that Ocean View teachers initially possessed strong skills in two of the three TPACK domains.
This paired with the culture of collaboration and professional development at the site, allowed
teachers to develop the third domain and reach TPACK where technology integration transforms
and enhances teaching and learning. Ocean View’s teaching staff is largely a veteran staff with
decades of combined teaching experience under their collective belts. They’ve also worked
together for many years at the school and in their grade level teams and have regularly
participated in professional development. As a result, the staff has a high degree of both content
knowledge (CK- knowing what to teach) and pedagogical knowledge (PC -knowing how to
teach it). This made a huge difference when technology was ramped up on the campus because
the teachers only had to focus on one area: how to build their technological knowledge (TK- how
to use technology to support teaching and learning). This was done systematically, adding
technologies over a five year period and building capacity in each one through professional
development, coaching support, and regular team collaboration. The end result was the
development of technological knowledge, particularly in the upper grades, and the realization of
TPACK to provide meaningful, technology enhanced learning to students.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 94
Discussion
A significant finding from the data aligned to his research question was that schools who
are successfully integrating technology contain highly skilled teachers with positive attitudes and
beliefs about using technology in their classrooms. One central theme was the critical
importance of the individual teacher and grade level team. Teachers that were knowledgeable
about instructional content and pedagogy had a significant advantage when it came to adding the
third TPACK domain of technological expertise. Personal skill and experience with technology
was found to be secondary to these factors. Teachers at Ocean View reported that since they
were already experts at creating curriculum and lessons, integrating technology where it made
sense was not daunting, especially in a low consequence, highly supportive team environment.
These teachers were further supported by the positive school technology culture created through
ongoing professional development aligned to technology integration, opportunities for
meaningful collaboration with peers, direct coaching, and an ongoing vision and expectation for
technology usage. Together, highly skilled teachers, a positive school culture that supported
ongoing learning, and the availability of 1:1 technology equated to technology being used in
transformative ways in the classrooms at Ocean View School.
Research Question 3B: How Does School Leadership Support the Integration of
Technology?
Narrative
“I always tell the teachers that if it’s easier to do it without technology, you
should still be doing it that way. But really what you’re looking for is something
you couldn’t do before that makes your instruction better. If substituting a
keyboard for a pencil makes students more efficient and productive – that’s great.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 95
But what is transformative is when students are able to create something that
allows them to share their learning in deeper, more meaningful ways, with a
broader audience. That’s the goal and it has kind of been our implementation
philosophy here from the very beginning.” Principal, Ocean View School (2014).
Findings
The district and school document review, survey, and interviews are in agreement that
leadership at the district, but especially the site level, was and continues to be a critical factor
impacting the successful integration of technology at Ocean View School. In the following
section, Bolman and Deal’s four frames (Bolman, 2008) will be used to examine the how the
different facets of leadership were used to overcome the challenges associated with successful
technology integration. These challenges include: overcoming first order barriers (hardware,
access, and tech support), overcoming second order barriers (professional development, positive
attitudes and beliefs), garnering support for the program from all stakeholders, and developing a
pro-technology school culture. Data from multiple instruments will be triangulated to discuss
each facet and its corresponding challenge as a means of answering the research questions.
Table 2
Four Frames and Corresponding Technology Leadership Challenge
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 96
In the Four Frame leadership model, the first frame is the structural frame. This frame
equates to leadership that creates an efficient machine or factory. The technology challenge
associated with this frame is overcoming first order barriers such as ensuring that there is teacher
and student access to technological hardware and software. Providing technical support to
support the use of these devices would also fall under the structural leadership facet.
At Ocean View School, this challenge was overcome through a combination of structural
leadership at the district and school level. Based on the district document review and survey,
technology had been a priority at Ocean View and other schools in the district for almost a
decade. However, in 2011-12 the district choose to launch a pilot 1:1 iPad program at select
school sites and support these sites with coaching and professional development. The principal
at Ocean View actively pursued the pilot program opportunity for her 4
th
grade teachers. She
was successful in lobbying for the program and Ocean View became one of the pilot schools.
Working with the PTA, iPads were purchased for the all the teachers and students in fourth
grade. The district provided enhanced wireless networking to support the new devices as well as
technical support to ensure that devices were online and operational. This combination of
district vision, principal support, and PTA funding allowed Ocean View to move forward with
their current 1:1 program and overcome the structural technology leadership challenge.
The second frame in the four frames model is the human resource frame. This frame
equates to leadership that is supportive of individuals and leads to empowerment. The
technology challenge associated with this frame is overcoming second order barriers to
integration such as providing meaningful professional development and helping teachers feel
positive about the use of technology in the classroom. The principal at Ocean View has shown
strong leadership in this area as confirmed by the survey data. The data on professional
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 97
development shared in the last section indicates that all teachers routinely attend differentiated,
technology focused professional development. While this support has tapered somewhat in the
past year, it is still available and occurring at least twice annually for each staff member.
In terms of teachers feeling supported, 100% of teachers felt that the principal actively
supported tech integration and 58% felt strongly about this. Similarly, 100% of teachers stated
that the principal’s expectations and support were very influential in their integration of
technology in their classroom. This was confirmed in the teacher interviews where it was
routinely stated that the principal was “extremely supportive” , “made them feel safe”, “trusted
them to use technology effectively”, allowed them to fail without consequence, and gave them
emotional support and “pats on the back” on a regular basis. Clearly, the principal at Ocean
View has created an environment where teachers receive the training and support they need to
successfully integrate technology in their classrooms.
The third frame is the political frame. The political frame involves navigating the
political “jungle” in order to move an agenda forward. The technology leadership challenge
associated with this frame is building community and district support for the program. In her
interview, the principal at Ocean View shared how that before she ever put an iPad in a student’s
hands, she worked tirelessly to secure support from the district and school stakeholders. She
actively pursued the fourth grade 1:1 pilot program and the following year she lobbied the board
of education to expand the program to fifth grade. Before the launch of both programs, she
surveyed her school parents to gauge their interest and support for the 1:1 concept. Using this
survey, she identified detractors and met with them personally to hear their concerns and explain
the program in more depth and detail. Finally, as stated earlier, the principal worked actively
with the school PTA to purchase the iPads for both programs. In summary, the principal at
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 98
Ocean View was politically skilled and took the proper steps to build support for the technology
program at Ocean View well before it entered the classrooms. This allowed the initial launch of
the 1:1 programs in the upper grades and set the stage for ongoing support of these programs.
The fourth and final leadership frame is the symbolic frame. The symbolic leader has a
vision and understands how to inspire others and create a positive culture around that vision.
The technology leadership challenge associated with this frame is creating an ongoing pro-
technology culture at a school site and ensuring continuing support and expansion of the
program. Ocean View School has been recognized as an Apple Distinguished School and
regularly hosts visits for teachers and administrators who want to see technology used effectively
in the classroom. Ocean View School is recognized in its district as the leading elementary
school in technology integration and is now building a reputation as a leader in STEM learning.
These accolades are commendable. They are also direct result of efforts by the principal and
staff to promote Ocean View’s reputation as a technology leader. By using the local news media
to promote the school and applying for the Apple program, the principal has been intentional
about sharing her vision, garnering recognition and, as a result, securing ongoing support for the
technology programs at Ocean View. Her recent construction of a “Maker Lab” aligned to
STEM learning is a continuing manifestation of her own passion and vision around technology,
but also another opportunity to make the school special and recognized as a leader in this area.
The principal also continues to push her vision within the school. She requires tech talks
from teachers at every staff meeting and she is working with the PTA to bring laptops to
Kindergarten and first grade. She also continues to push for her teachers to attend the
technology focused CUE conference. All of these efforts serve to promote and create an ongoing
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 99
pro-technology climate at Ocean View School. They also continue to promote a vision for
Ocean View’s future that includes the continuing use of technology at all levels.
Discussion
A significant finding from the data aligned to his research question was that effective
leadership matters when working to create a transformative technology environment at a school
site. Although technology existed at Ocean View School before the tenure of the current
principal, it was through her more recent efforts that the program grew and became truly
transformative to teaching and learning at the school. The principal accomplished this by
demonstrating leadership in multiple dimensions as defined by Bolman and Deal’s four frames.
Most importantly, the principal had a vision for technology use that she shared with stakeholders
and actively advocated for. She provided both training and support to staff, gave them
permission to experiment, fail, and grow, but always maintained the expectation of full
integration. She also successfully used school stakeholders, the district, local media, and
corporations to further her vision and agenda. While isolated pockets of transformational
technology use can exist at a school, driven by the teacher at the classroom level, it takes strong
school leadership to make tech integration ubiquitous, ongoing, and part of the school culture.
Summary
The time spent gathering data at Ocean View School was enlightening and illustrative in
terms of better understanding how the integrated use of classroom technology is transforming
teaching and learning. It provided insight into the types of personnel, including experience level
and attitudes towards classroom technology use, which are best suited to effectively integrate
technology. It also revealed the critical aspects of school culture needed to promote and support
the use of technology including access, professional development, and peer collaboration. The
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 100
important role of the school leader in shaping all of these factors was also explored and a model
for an effective leader of technology integration was highlighted.
In summary, five significant themes were discovered though the research and analysis
process. These themes are detailed below and are expanded upon in the discussion section.
(1) Ubiquitous and effective usage of technology in schools/classrooms takes years of planning,
systematic introduction, and training for all stakeholders.
(2) 1:1 devices paired with new, adaptive web-based programs and applications can realize the
long-standing potential of technology to transform and enhance teaching and learning.
(3) When used effectively by skilled teachers, current technologies, programs, and applications
can transform and enhance teaching and learning in powerful ways. This transformation
often results in new roles and responsibilities for teachers and students.
(4) Schools who are successfully integrating technology in classrooms have highly skilled
teachers and climates that value professional development and peer collaboration.
(5) Strong school leadership is needed to drive widespread integration of technology and support
and maintain a positive school culture around technology use.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 101
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Historically, there have been a myriad of challenges and barriers associated with
successful technology integration and use in schools. They include first order barriers such as
access to hardware and tech support and second order barriers such as school climate, leadership
professional development, and teacher beliefs and attitudes towards technology. In order for
technology to truly transform teaching and learning, these challenges and barriers must first be
mitigated. This is particularly important as our society and economy become increasingly
technology driven. Our schools and classrooms need to use technology to enhance and extend
teaching and learning so they can best prepare today’s students to actively participate in the
current high-tech society and economy.
Schools exist that have transcended the difficulties associated with technology integration
and use. These schools are realizing the potential of technology to transform teaching and
learning in new and powerful ways. In these schools, technology is used to differentiate content,
actively engage students in learning, and make learning more rigorous and relevant to the real
world. These technology enhanced schools are worthy of further investigation in order to better
understand how they overcame the challenges and barriers associated with technology
integration and the resulting impact on classroom teaching and learning. The current study was
focused on technology integration and use at an elementary school that is successfully using
technology to transform teaching and learning. The research questions included:
1. What technology is present at the school (and in the classroom) and how it is used as a
tool of instruction in the classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of the technology on teaching and learning?
3. How does the school climate and leadership support the integration of technology?
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 102
A qualitative case study methodology was selected. The purpose of this study was to
provide a deep, detailed description of the impact of technology on teaching and learning at a
high technology use school. The ultimate goal of qualitative research is to provide “rich and
thick” (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2003) descriptions of specific phenomenon that get at its meaning
both at the basic level and as it relates to the greater body of literature. Therefore, this
methodology matched the purpose of the study. Data collection for this study involved
document review, surveys, interviews, and observations. All data was reviewed, coded, and
triangulated to develop common themes and significant findings. These findings are discussed in
greater detail in the following pages.
Discussion of Themes
The major themes from the current study support, extend, and in some cases, challenge
the current literature on technology integration. In all cases, the themes offer interesting insights
into effective models for integrating technology in schools and using technology in
transformative ways that enhance teaching and learning. In the following pages, each specific
theme will be discussed, situated in the literature on technology use in schools, and examined in
a real-world context. Ideally, the themes from the current study can be used to support the
successful integration of technology in additional schools and classrooms and have a positive
impact on teaching and learning there within.
(1) Ubiquitous and effective usage of technology in schools/classrooms takes years of
planning, systematic introduction, and training for all stakeholders.
The successful use of technology at Ocean View School was not an accident. The school
had used technology in its classrooms for well over a decade. The community and district highly
valued technology use in classrooms, helped fund the purchase of technology, and set the
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 103
expectation that it would be used as a tool for teaching and learning. Teachers were trained and
provided with support for implementation from their principals and peers. The climate and
comfort level of teachers was such that when technology usage was significantly increased over
the past five years, it did not meet with resistance or ineptitude. Instead, the veteran staff rose to
the challenge, regardless of their own level of comfort with the technology, and worked hard to
successfully integrate it into their classrooms.
This finding confirms what Ertmer (1999) and Buckenmeyer (2010) learned about
overcoming first order barriers. In short, that simply purchasing technology is not enough,
particularly if there isn’t a culture of technology use at the school that includes professional
development, collaboration, and supportive leadership. There are a number of examples where
this has proven true, most notably the recent iPad debacle in the Los Angeles Unified School
District. Purchasing thousands of devices does not make for a successful implementation or
facilitate the transformation of teaching and learning in classrooms. Far from it, without careful
planning and training for teachers and students in the effective use of the technology, it can be
detrimental to the learning environment. In contrast, schools that integrate technology
successfully typically have a track record of successful teaching and learning. Technology
makes them even stronger.
(2) 1:1 devices paired with new, adaptive web-based programs and applications can realize
the long-standing potential of technology to transform and enhance teaching and
learning.
For decades, technology experts and enthusiasts have stated that technology has the
potential to transform the current industrial, one-size fits all model of schooling to one that is
inherently more learner-centered, relevant, and engaging (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Garrison,
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 104
2011; Papert, 1993, Resnick, 2002; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). This vision, however, has never
been fully realized – until now. The availability and affordability of hand-held, wireless devices
in conjunction with the development of adaptive, web-based curricula has finally provided a
means for teachers to efficiently differentiate content in both reading and English-Language
Arts. Using technology and adaptive curricula, teachers can now effectively meet students at
their individual instructional levels, conduct ongoing formative assessment, and provide targeted
content at the click of a button. This allows the teacher to be more efficient in terms of
delivering content and the student to be more efficient in mastering content. This is turn can
result in accelerated student achievement.
At Ocean View School, the widespread and successful use of 1:1 devices to differentiate
learning for students was impressive. Students used adaptive, web-based programs on their
devices to remediate and accelerate math concepts, read fiction and non-fiction books at their
independent reading level, and get real-time feedback on their writing. In all cases, the use of
technology gave them more opportunities to answer questions, receive immediate feedback, and
receive automatic remediation or acceleration based on their performance. For a teacher in a
classroom with up to 35 students, this kind of individualized attention was all but impossible five
years ago. Now, it is a reality that has the potential to dramatically transform the landscape of
the traditional classroom into a highly individualized, performance driven learning space.
(3) When used effectively by skilled teachers, current technologies, programs, and
applications can transform and enhance teaching and learning in powerful ways. This
transformation often results in new roles and responsibilities for teachers and students.
At Ocean View School, technology was used in ways that constituted a redefinition of
traditional teaching and learning practices. In other words, technology allowed the teachers and
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 105
students to interact, extend, and deepen their learning in novel and powerful ways. Examples of
this included students collaborating on writing online, using Blogs and social networks to share
information and dialogue about learning, communicating digitally with students from other
school and countries, creating multimedia presentations containing images, video, voice, and
text, and conducting research tied to real-world problems and events. One common criticism of
public schools is that, generally, the delivery is not engaging and the content is not relevant to
the current generation of students – digital natives raised in a technology driven society. This
disconnect was not observed at Ocean View. Not only were these activities engaging, but they
also ranked much higher in the cognitive hierarchy in terms of their rigor and promotion of
critical thinking and logical reasoning skills.
Furthermore, using technology is the ways described in the previous paragraph required a
shift in the traditional roles and responsibilities of teachers and students. Instead of the teachers
just teaching and students just learning, the use of technology required that teachers become
facilitators of learning and co-learners and that students assume the role of teaching themselves,
their peers, and often their teacher. Not surprisingly, this shifting of roles is closely aligned with
the best practices for technology integration defined in the literature including constructivist
learning theory, project based learning, and STEM learning. In all cases, it required the teacher
to relinquish some control to students and empower them to drive their own learning. Contrary
to one of the central arguments against classroom technology use, the teachers did not have
difficulty making this shift. In fact, the teachers at Ocean View found it liberating and a
powerful approach to increasing student engagement and learning. This shift in roles was most
apparent at Ocean View when observing the “Genius Hour” project where students developed
questions tied to real world problems, engaged in active research, and then created a multimedia
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 106
presentation to share what they had learned. This activity was almost entirely student driven
with the teacher serving as a mentor, facilitator, and co-learner.
(4) Schools who are successfully integrating technology in classrooms have highly skilled
teachers and climates that value professional development and peer collaboration.
A school climate that encourages and supports the use of technology was positively
correlated with the effective use of technology in classrooms (Bitner & Bitner, 2002;
Buckenmeyer, 2010; Ertmer 1999, 2010, 2012; Inan & Lowther, 2010). This well documented
finding was confirmed by the current study. At Ocean View, the principal has a vision and a
strategic plan for technology integration and use. Teachers are provided with training and
technical support. They feel trusted and safe using the technology in their classrooms and are
supported both in their successes and failures. There are also frequent opportunities for teachers
to collaborate with peers and share their learning. Together, these elements have created a strong
expectation and culture of technology use at the school. This has resulted in the more effective
use of technology in the classrooms by both teachers and students over time.
Surprisingly, many of the 1:1 teachers at Ocean View did not initially have a background
with or passion for using technology. This is contrary to research indicating that teachers who
integrate technology have strong pro-technology beliefs, attitudes, and experiences (Ertmer
2010, 2012; Judson, 2006). Instead, teachers at Ocean View were veteran educators who saw it
as their responsibility to learn and use technology in order to provide the best education for their
students. This, and the expectation for technology integration from the community and principal,
were the motivating factors that drove the teachers to spend countless hours of their own time
learning how to best use technology to enhance teaching and learning. The conclusion that can
be drawn from this is that when skilled teachers have access to technology and understand the
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 107
value of using it in their classrooms, it can inspire them to learn and use it regardless of their
background and/or prior beliefs about technology.
(5) Strong school leadership is needed to drive widespread integration of technology and
support and maintain a positive school culture around technology use.
The current study found that school leadership plays a critical role in creating and
sustaining a school culture that encourages and supports the use of technology. While Ocean
View had used and integrated technology for many years before the tenure of the current
principal, it was through her efforts that the school’s use of technology became ubiquitous and
transformative in nature. The principal came in with a vision for technology usage that increased
the number of devices and student access to these devices. She also provided a vision for how
this technology would be used: to enhance, extend, and transcend standard classroom practices
rather than simply replacing them. Finally, she was able to get her staff on board with this vision
and provide the training and support they needed to move towards this new ideal. The takeaway
from this is that in order to have effective use of technology at a school (or in a district), there
needs to be a leader who can mitigate first and second order barriers, assist staff in persevering
through the substitution and augmentation phases of implementation, and guide them towards
using technology in ways that modify and redefine teaching and learning in their classrooms.
Without this “technology champion” in the early phases of integration, it is difficult for a school
to develop widespread, meaningful use of technology.
Implications for Practice
Themes from this study will contribute to the current literature defining best practices for
technology integration and guide the development of elementary school technology integration
plans. The themes will also be used to guide best practices for technology use in the classroom
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 108
and assist school leaders in creating the right climate, professional development, and supports to
integrate technology in classrooms in meaningful ways that transform teaching and learning. In
a larger sense, the goal of the study is provide a roadmap that will help schools navigate the
challenges and barriers associated with technology integration and use. If successful, this would
allow schools to create technologically enhanced learning environments that would best prepare
their students for full and meaningful participation in the technologically driven world they live
in.
Each of the five themes has specific implications for effective technology integration and
use in schools. These implications are listed here in alignment with each of the themes:
1. In order to successfully integrate technology, schools should develop a comprehensive three
to five year plan that addresses first and second order barriers including access to technology,
tech support, teacher training, coaching, collaboration, and ongoing personal and professional
support. The plan should also contain a clear vision for how technology will be used in
classrooms with a focus on activities that modify and redefine learning. It should address the
role of all stakeholders in achieving the vision including teachers, administrators, parents,
district staff, PTA, booster clubs, and community organizations. This plan should be
developed collaboratively with these entities and have clear, attainable, measurable goals for
implementation, use, and student achievement.
2. Schools should strongly consider implementing 1:1 student-device programs and investigate
adaptive, web-based curricular programs that differentiate content and provide ongoing
formative and summative assessments of student performance. The combination of these
two elements was, in itself, transformative and a realization of the potential of technology to
provide individualized instruction in an efficient manner. Even if this was all that the devices
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 109
were used for initially, it would likely accelerate learning in the classroom and allow the
teacher to more efficiently use his or her time to work with small groups of students.
3. In the initial phases of technology implementation, careful consideration should be given to
the teachers selected to pilot 1:1 student-device programs. Technology does not replace the
teacher. In fact, skilled teachers are critically important to the successful implementation and
use of technology in the classroom. Selecting skilled teachers with strong content knowledge
and pedagogy will more often result in the integration of technology in ways that are
transformative. Furthermore, teachers that utilize constructivist teaching methods and are
comfortable relinquishing control to students are more likely to have success using
technology to redefine classroom learning. Conversely, teachers that are unsuccessful in the
traditional classroom should not necessarily be given 1:1 technology as it could prove
subtractive to student learning.
4. Developing a pro-technology culture at a school is important to widespread implementation
of technology and transformative use. Successful technology integration does not happen
overnight but takes years of starts, stops, and restarts. Creating a culture where technology
use is encouraged, expected, and supported will continue to move the school forward even
after the excitement of owning new technology wanes. Plan regular professional
development around technology, create opportunities for teacher collaboration around
effective technology use, and encourage staff to attend annual EdTech conferences.
5. Leadership makes a difference. Well articulated technology plans, vision, 1:1 programs,
selection of web-based curriculum and applications, skilled and knowledgeable teachers, and
a positive school culture are all products of strong, effective leadership. Schools that want to
successfully integrate technology in transformative ways need progressive, forward thinking
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 110
leaders who can make recommendations number one through four possible. Districts and
schools should pursue leadership that has a vision for using technology to transform learning
and a track record of creating positive change.
Future Research
The current study focused on one elementary school getting technology integration right
and the implications of this on teaching and learning. There are hundreds more of these
groundbreaking schools out there, thousands if we count middle and high schools. While this
study is part of a larger cohort of twelve studies each asking similar questions at other high-tech
schools, there is a need for more research in this area. As noted previously, we sit on a tipping
point where technology finally has the reach and power to truly transform our education system,
it is critical that we understand the potentials and pitfalls of the tremendous shift we will make
over the next decade. The following are suggested as areas of further research needed in
successful high-tech K-12 schools:
1. There are many powerful approaches to using technology in transformative ways to redefine
teaching and learning. More qualitative and quantitative studies are needed to identify these
approaches. It is also important to develop a systematic and reliable means of measuring the
impact of these approaches on student learning and achievement.
2. Teachers are still the most important factor in student learning. It will be increasingly
important to understand the changing role of the teacher in a technology infused classroom.
What is the teacher’s primarily function in the 21
st
century classroom? How do they use
technology to efficiently and effectively differentiate learning for students? When do they
choose to not use technology?
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 111
3. Strong leadership is vital in developing a successful high-tech school. What leadership
competencies are the most important for technology leaders? How did they develop these
competencies? How can we best impart these competencies to other school leaders?
Conclusions
We live in an increasingly technology driven, information saturated society. There is no
turning back. The exponential rate of growth associated with technology will continue to rapidly
change the society and economy we live and work in. We cannot even predict what kinds of
jobs students currently in elementary school will work when they graduate from college. They
may not even currently exist. What we do know is that these jobs will require students to
fluently use technologies to efficiently access information from multiple sources, think critically,
collaborate and communicate effectively, and demonstrate creative problem solving. Therefore,
as educators we are tasked with distilling the vast possibilities associated with technology use in
the classroom to a smaller number of potent approaches that will have the greatest positive
impact on student learning. We must identify and create technology infused pedagogy that will
engage digital natives, promote the 4Cs, accelerate learning, and most importantly teach our
students how to use computers as powerful tools to drive their own learning and development.
Once this happens, the walls of the classrooms recede infinitely to encompass the entire known
universe – accessible at the touch of a finger.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 112
REFERENCES
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing
House, 83(2), 39-43.
Beer, S. (2012). 21st century skills: Preparing students for THEIR future.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success.
Journal of technology and teacher education, 10(1), 95-100.
Bolman, L.G. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice And Leadership (Wiley
Desktop Editions) Author: Lee G. Bolman, Terrence E. Deal.
Buckenmeyer, J. A. (2010). Beyond computers in the classroom: Factors related to technology
adoption to enhance teaching and learning. Contemporary Issues in Education Research
(CIER), 3(4), 27-36.
Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia
learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 97-115.
Cuban, L., & Cuban, L. (2009). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard
University Press.
Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital
revolution and schooling in America. Teachers College Press.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Cresswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Dewan, S., & Riggins, F. J. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research
directions. Journal of the Association for information systems, 6(12), 298-337.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 113
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional
technology. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, 1-
16
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., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
& Education, 59(2), 423-435.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (pp. 25-67).
Gall, M., & Gall, J. Borg.(2003) Educational research, an introduction.
Garland, V. E., & Tadeja, C. (2013). Educational Leadership and Technology: Preparing School
Administrators for a Digital Age. Routledge.
Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice.
Grant, M. M. (2011). Learning, Beliefs, and Products: Students' Perspectives with Project-based
Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2), 6.
Hall, G. E. (2010). Technology’s Achilles heel: Achieving high-quality implementation. Journal
of research on technology in education, 42(3), 231-253.
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people's online skills. First
monday, 7(4).
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 114
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.
Hanson, K., & Carlson, B. (2005). Effective Access: Teachers' Use of Digital Resources in
STEM Teaching. Education Development Center, Inc.
Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. Routledge.
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt‐Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad
for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15-23.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12
classrooms: a path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2),
137-154.
International Society for Technology in Education (ITSE). (2000). National educational
technology standards for students: Connecting curriculum and technology. Eugene, OR:
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).
Judson, E. (2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a
connection?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(3), 581-597.
Johnson, L., & Brown, S. (2011). Challenge Based Learning: The Report from the
Implementation Project.
Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and
learning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering Meaningful Student Learning Through
Constructivist Pedagogy and Technology Integration. International Journal of
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 115
Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE),7(4), 1-10.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Onchwari, J. (2009). Technology and student learning: Towards a
learner-centered teaching model. AACE Journal, 17(1), 11-22.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Larmer, J., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2011). The Main Course, Not Dessert.
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology
into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and
answers. Review of educational research, 77(4), 575-614.
Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward
a new mindset. Educational technology research and development, 41(3), 4-16.
Mama-Timotheou, M., & Hennessy, S. (2013). Developing a typology of beliefs and practices
concerning classroom use of ICT. Computers & Education.
Mardis, M., Everhart, N., Smith, D., Newsum, J., & Baker, S. (2010). From paper to pixel:
Digital textbooks and Florida's schools.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, O. T., & Olcese, N. R. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 116
not?. TechTrends, 55(6), 42-48.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring
classroom technology use. Learning and Leading with technology,23, 40-40.
Paiy, M.U. (2013). Creating constructivist learning environment: Role of “web 2.0” technology.
International Forum of Teaching and Studies, 9(1), 29-50.
Pieratt, J. R. (2010). Advancing the ideas of John Dewey: A look at the high tech Schools.
Education and Culture, 26(2), 52-64.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Tucson, AZ:
Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods
approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417-441.
Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. Basic
Books.
Perkins, D. N. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage.
Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, 45-55.
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. In Presentation
delivered at the Strengthening Your District Through Technology workshops.
Rakes, G. C., Fields, V. S., & Cox, K. E. (2006). The influence of teachers' technology use on
instructional practices. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 409.
Ramos, P. H. (2005). If Not Here, Where? Understanding Teachers Use Of Technology In
Silicon Valley Schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38, 39-64.
Resnick, M. (2002). Rethinking learning in the digital age.
Reinhart, J. M., Thomas, E., & Torskie, J. M. (2011). K-12 teachers: Technology use and the
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 117
second level digital divide. Journal of instructional psychology, 38(3), 181.
Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past
and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary
Educational Technology, 1, 17–35. Retrieved from http://www .cedtech.net/articles/
112.pdf
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31-38.
Taylor & Francis Grant, M. M. (2002). Getting a grip on project-based learning: Theory, cases
and recommendations. Meridian: A Middle School Computer Technologies Journal, 5(1),
83.
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What
Forty Years of Research Says About the Impact of Technology on Learning A Second-
Order Meta-Analysis and Validation Study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28.
Tassinari, M. (1996). Hands-on projects take students beyond the book. Social Studies Review,
34(3), 16-20.
Thompson, P. (2013). The digital natives as learners: Technology use patterns and approaches to
learning. Computers & Education.
Tondeur, J., Hermans, R., van Braak, J., & Valcke, M. (2008). Exploring the link between
teachers’ educational belief profiles and different types of computer use in the
classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2541-2553.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley &
Sons.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 118
development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget's theory of cognitive and affective development: Foundations of
constructivism . Longman Publishing.
Wang, Q. (2009). Design and evaluation of a collaborative learning environment. Computers&
Education, 53(4), 1138–1146.
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling:
Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.
Webb, N. L. (2002). Depth-of-knowledge levels for four content areas. Language Arts.
Weiss, R.S. (1994). Introduction (Ch. 1) and Preparation for interviewing (Ch. 3. Learning from
Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies (pp. 1-14 and 51-59). New
York: The Free Press.
Wetzel, K., & Marshall, S. (2012). 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.
Worthy, J. (2000). Conducting research on topics of student interest. Reading Teacher, 54(3),
298-299.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Wu, W. C. I. (2012). Digital storytelling for enhancing student academic
achievement, critical thinking, and learning motivation: A year-long experimental
study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 339-352.
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 119
APPENDIX A: INSTRUMENTS AND PROTOCOLS
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
RQ 2: How is technology used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 120
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:
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
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 121
Student achievement data Documents:
CDE
Data Quest
CASHEE
Forms and observational tools Documents:
Copy of observation form
RQ 3: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
Data Needs
Admin, teachers, students and parents will all be data
sources.
Documents:
Year End Evaluation Data
WASC (perception data)
We’re looking for opinions, beliefs, values, and
efficacy
Documents:
WASC (perception data)
The relationship between inputs and outputs on the
campus.
Documents:
WASC
School Site Plan
Sub-questions
● How is tech being used in the classrooms?
● Has tech impacted the quality of instruction?
● Has tech brought additional challenges to the
classroom?
● How has tech impacted teacher efficacy? Student
efficacy?
● Has the investment made in tech been worth the
cost?
Documents:
WASC
School Site Plan
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 122
Survey Instrument
Personal Demographics (RQ1, RQ3)
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 (RQ1)
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 (RQ3)
8. Please check all of the policies that are in place at your school site.
Acceptable use policy
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 123
Security policy
Etiquette policy (i.e. Cyber bullying, etc.)
Parent contract/agreement for take-home usage
Technology and Instruction (RQ2, RQ3)
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.
0-1 years
2-3 years
4-5 years
5+ years
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
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 124
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
18. The school’s investment in technology has proven worth its cost.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
19. Technology has impacted teaching in what way?
Significantly enhanced teaching
Has somewhat improved teachers’ ability to instruct and manage
Has had a slightly negative impact on the teaching profession
Has proved subversive to the abilities and missions of teachers
20. I feel confident when integrating technology into my classroom instruction.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 125
Classroom Observation Instrument
Teacher _______________________________ Date _______________________
School ________________________________ Grade/Subject: _______________
Observer _______________________________ Time: _______________________
Research Questions
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
3. In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where does the
leadership come from?
Classroom Environment
Student Seating Arrangement
! Take a picture/video of classroom before students enter
Number of Students:
Teacher Proximity to Students:
Teacher in front of class, Teacher
moves around, Teacher works
with groups, Teacher behind
desk, etc.
Location of Technology:
Technology in front of classroom,
Technology at student desks
Use of wall space:
To display student work, To aid
in learning, etc.
Additional Classroom Environment Notes
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 126
What technology tools available at the school are actually being used in the classroom?
Technology used Who is using
technology?
How and to what purpose is the technology being used?
__ Active Board
__ Clickers
__ IPods
__ IPads
__ Internet Videos
__ Power Points
___ Visuals
___ Audio
___ Internet
___Websites
___ Doc Cams
___ Other:
________________
________________
___ Teacher
___ Student
___ Both
___ Other
How are the technology tools used to aid student learning?
Learning Objective:
Desired Student
Outcome:
How is technology
being used to
accomplish learning
objective?
• Motivation
• Engagement
• CFU
• Communication
• Research
• Differentiation
• Creating project
• Assessment
• Other
Are the technology
tools as stated in
interviews and
survey being used in
classrooms?
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 127
Observation Notes
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 128
Interview Protocol
Teacher Interview Protocol
RQ1: What technology is present at the school and how it is used as a tool of instruction in
the classroom?
1. What types of technology are being used in your classroom?
2. Who uses technology in your classroom? For what purpose?
3. What learning outcomes are associated with technology use?
4. Where (in what learning activities) do you integrate technology into daily classroom
practice?
5. How do students demonstrate mastery using technology?
RQ2: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
1. What are your general feelings about the role of technology in education?
Probing questions:
a. What role does technology play in preparing for their futures?
2. What do you consider to be the affordances and constraints of integrating technology into
your classroom?
3. Are the times when you choose not to use technology for instruction? When? Why?
4. What advice would you give to teachers as they begin to integrate technology into their
classroom?
RQ3: In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where
does the leadership come from?
1. How would you describe the technology culture at your school?
2. What has motivated you to successfully integrate technology into your classroom?
3. What challenges have you faced when integrating technology in your classroom?
4. What impact has school leadership had on your use of technology?
5. What kinds of professional experiences have influenced you integration of technology?
Running Head: TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGY 129
Administrator Interview Protocol
RQ1: What technology is present at the school and how it is used as a tool of instruction in
the classroom?
1. What types of technology are being used in your classroom?
2. Who uses technology in the classroom? For what purpose?
3. What learning outcomes are associated with technology use?
4. Where (in what learning activities) is technology integrated into daily classroom
practice?
5. How do students demonstrate mastery using technology?
RQ2: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
5. What are your general feelings about the role of technology in education?
Probing questions:
a. What role does technology play in preparing for their futures?
6. What do you consider to be the affordances and constraints of integrating technology into
classrooms?
7. What advice would you give to teachers as they begin to integrate technology into their
classroom?
RQ3: In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where
does the leadership come from?
6. How would you describe the technology culture at your school?
7. What has motivated you to successfully integrate technology at the school?
8. What challenges have you faced when integrating technology at your school?
9. What impact has district leadership had on your school use of technology?
10. What kinds of professional experiences have influenced you integration of technology?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Technology integration at a 21st-century school
PDF
A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school
PDF
Technology practices and 21st century learning: a high school case study
PDF
Transforming teaching and learning with technology: a case study of a California public school
PDF
Transformational technology practices: a case study
PDF
21st century teaching and learning with technology integration at an innovative high school: a case study
PDF
Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study
PDF
Integration of technology and teaching and learning practices at a technology magnet elementary school: a case study
PDF
Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school
PDF
Investigating the dynamics of a 21st-century school integrating and implementing technology to enhance teaching and learning: a case study
PDF
Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study
PDF
Transformational technology in K-12 schools: an elementary case study
PDF
Integrated technology: a case study surrounding assertions and realities
PDF
Learning and teaching with technology
PDF
1:1 device program in a K-12 public school: the influence of technology on teaching and learning
PDF
Technology integration and innovation in teaching and learning: a case study
PDF
Impact of technology on teaching and learning practices at high‐technology use K-12 schools: a case study
PDF
A new generation: a new model of education in the 21st century
PDF
Embracing globalization and 21st century skills in a dual language immersion school
PDF
Technology integration and implementation in curriculum and instruction in K–12 schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
MacDonald, William J., III
(author)
Core Title
Transformative technology: teaching and learning at a 21st century elementary school
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/29/2015
Defense Date
03/09/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
1:1,21st Century,digital literacy,Integration,iPad,K-5,OAI-PMH Harvest,redefinition,SAMR,Technology,transformational
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Gothold, Stuart E. (
committee chair
), Donavan, Frank (
committee member
), Hocevar, Dennis (
committee member
)
Creator Email
wjmacd3@gmail.com,wmacdona@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-566165
Unique identifier
UC11298985
Identifier
etd-MacDonaldW-3423.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-566165 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-MacDonaldW-3423.pdf
Dmrecord
566165
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
MacDonald, William J., III
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
Tags
1:1
digital literacy
iPad
K-5
redefinition
SAMR
transformational