University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 1

1:1 Device Program in a K-12 Public School: The Influence of Technology on
Teaching and Learning

by
Alex J. Ballard

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 Alex J. Ballard

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Stuart Gothold for the invitation to join, "the great
conversation." Indeed, I will not lose sight of the simple, elegant and important things that
transform how we think about leading, teaching and learning. I am honored to be your student.
Knowledge is King! I won the teacher lottery studying from Mr. Rich Herold. Thank
you for inspiring to me to learn. I am truly honored to call you a teacher and a friend.
There is always someone who is better, faster and stronger. Yet, you taught me to
overcome via training and endurance. There is no such thing as luck, only where opportunity
meets preparation. Mr. Ron Breyer, thank you for modeling respect, integrity and self discipline.
It is an honor to call you, "Coach."
Jim and Sue Ballard gave me this life and have inspired a sense of unflinching resilience
and fortitude. Most of all, I thank you for being the models of passion, compassion and integrity.
You both showed me how lead in the face of adversity with a sense of authenticity and integrity.
Thank you for pushing me to never sell myself short and teaching me the art and discipline of
hard work. I am honored to be your son.
I cannot underscore the love and appreciation I have for my wife, Candi. In the moments
of sheer exhaustion, you supported my efforts, motivated me to persevere and helped me to
never lose sight of the goal. In the quiet moments of reflecting on the purpose and intangible
costs of this endeavor, you steadfastly encouraged and supported me in this journey. I am
honored to be your husband.
Lastly, an enormous motivation in completing this endeavor is the love of two children,
Ellie and Andrew. I sincerely hope your life's work is filled with a sense of commitment,
passion and integrity. I hope the impact of your life's work eclipse's that of mine. Please
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 3
remember that education is paramount. Always persevere past your own perceived limits to
attain an education that is rich and pays the proportional dividends of the work necessary to
attain the degrees of knowledge. I am honored to be your Dad.
It has been said that education is what is left after you have forgotten all the facts. I am
humbled by the intellectual giants who shared brief moments of their life underscoring the
importance of contributing to the academic conversation about teaching and learning. I am
honored to be a part of this tradition.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter 1: Introduction 10
Problem Statement 12
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 13
Methodology 13
Assumptions 14
Delimitations and Limitations 15
Glossary of Terms 16
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
I. Technology in K-12 Schools 20
History 20
Continuum of ICT Associated Learning 22
Fully online 23
Blended Online & Face to Face 23
Completely Face to Face 24
Learning Management Software 24
21
st
Century Skills & Common Core Standards 25
II. Impact of Technology 27
Technology and Student Motivation 27
Technology and Curricular Access 28
Technology and Instruction 29
Technology and Accountability 29
Barriers to Implementation of Technology 31
Teacher Ideology 32
III. Promising Practices/Model 34
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) 35
Substitution - Augmentation - Modification - Redefinition Model - SAMR Model 36
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 5
1:1 Computer to Student Instruction 36
Flipped Classroom, Vodcasting & Learning Management Systems 37
Knowledge Community & Inquiry Model 38
Active Implementation Model 38
Conclusion 40
Chapter Three: Methodology 42
Problem Statement 42
Research Questions 42
Purpose of the Study 43
Background 43
Conceptual Model 44
Research Design 46
Population and Sample 48
Instrumentation 49
Consent Process 52
Data Collection 53
Validity and Reliability 54
Data Analysis 55
Summary 56
Chapter Four: Results 58
Background on XYZ School 59
Participants 62
Table 1 63
Summary of Data Collection 63
Initial Visits 63
Survey Distribution 64
Observations and Interviews 65
Findings and Discussion 66
First Research Question: What technology is present at the school? 66
Facility Based Hardware 66
Student Issued Hardware 67
Applications & Software 68
Table 2 68
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 6
Personnel & Support for Technology Integration 69
Table 3 70
Second Research Question: how is technology used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom? 70
Table 4 71
Collaboration & Assessment 72
Student Engagement & Creativity 75
Third Research Question: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and
learning? 78
Table 5 79
Technology influences the identity of the teacher during the learning process 79
Technology improves student ability to access content & demonstrate mastery 80
Emergent Themes 82
Theme 1: Technology as a central pillar of character education 82
Theme 2: "The "F" word is key to our success - Flexibility" 82
Theme 3: The critical handshake of adaptive teacher leadership and facilitative
administration by school administrators 84
Summary 87
Chapter 5: Discussion 88
Introduction 88
Analysis of Findings 89
Implications for Practice 93
Recommendations for Future Research 94
References 96
Appendix A – Survey Protocol 106
Appendix B – Observation Protocol 111
Appendix C – Observation Protocol 116

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 7

List of Tables
Table 1. Participant Demographics vs. Perceived Technology Fluency 63
Table 2. Application associated student learning behavior related to SAMR Model 68
Table 3. Perceptions Related to Technology Integration 70
Table 4. Perceived learning behaviors associated with use of technology in instruction 71
Table 5. Teacher Beliefs Regarding Technology & Instructional Effectiveness 79

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 8

List of Figures
Figure 1. SAMR Model - Transformation vs. Enhancement 36
Figure 2. Active Implementation Drivers 40
Figure 3. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge 45
Figure 4. Active Implementation Drivers 86
Figure 5. The SAMR Model 91

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 9
Abstract
Widely available computer based technology permeates society and provides the populous
access to a greater quantity of information on an ad lib basis as compared to the previous fifty
years. At the completion of a K-12 education, students are expected to both be fluent in digital
content but also in the creation and evaluation of digitally mediated content. The purpose of this
study is to describe the influence of technology on teaching and learning in a successful K-12
public school that employs a 1:1 device program. Method: using a qualitative case study
approach, this study describes the available digital technology, the cognate methods of
instruction and the perceived impact on teaching and learning. Correlate outcomes include the
contextual factors of leadership and school culture that support the implementation of the 1:1
device program. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Substitution -
Augmentation - Modification - Redefinition (SAMR) Model and Active Implementation
leadership model (NIRN) provide philosophical frames used to organize and evaluate data.
Results: this study found factors such as an innovative school culture, key leadership behaviors
on the part of teachers and administrators and a technologically relevant instructional pedagogy
were associated with the observable increase in student engagement joined to increased
frequency of instructional activities defined by higher level Bloom's Skills. Conclusion: given
key considerations that support a school culture of innovation, flexibility and responsibility, a 1:1
device program can transform instruction that is joined to high levels of student performance.
Keywords: 1:1 Device program, teaching and learning, instructional technology
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 10
1:1 Device Program in a K-12 Public School: The Influence of Technology on
Teaching and Learning
Chapter 1: Introduction
Technology maintains a transcendental influence on the practice of teaching and learning.
The year 1560 saw the advent of a stick of graphite supported by wood. The subsequent spread
of the modern pencil invaded the classroom, thus transforming the process of teaching and
learning. In 1642, Blaise Pascal developed and built the first mechanical calculator. The
machine took the input of a person, stored the information, performed a mathematic
manipulation and provided an output (answer). The basics described above describe key process
points of the contemporary personal computer. Similar to the advent of the pencil, the personal
computer maintains the poise to have a powerfully transformative influence on the process of
teaching and learning.
In 1960, James Finn noted the shortage of teachers, rising class sizes and the need for
effective instruction as drivers for the introduction of instructional technology (Finn, 1960).
Regardless of the specifics of the desired implements of instruction, Finn captures the ever
present notion that technology – a perpetually contemporary concept – can mitigate influences
that threaten the learning processes or enhancing the efficiency of the learning process. In the 30
years since the inception of the Apple II computer by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the United
States, as well as other countries, stand witness to the tidal wave of widely available personal
computing devices including laptops, tablets and smart phones – to mention a few. There exists
a breadth of research that discusses the presence of technology in the classroom environment and
it’s modulation of the teaching process - a process where the teacher maintains and uses the
technology for instruction. Only recently – correlating to the advent of an Internet accessible
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 11
smart cell phone – did the availability of technology become largely accessible to students.
Grounded in the anecdotal observation that most contemporary instructional technology merely
replaces the previous generation of technology, this study seeks participant schools that use
technology in a manner that transforms instruction as opposed to enhancing previous methods of
instruction. Moreover, in light of a conspicuous absence of literature describing the
transformative influence of technology on teaching and learning, thing study seeks to expand this
conversation by describing schools, who by several measures, are academically successful and
demonstrate innovative student use of technology as a key component of the teaching and
learning process.
Formal study of instructional technology is varied in focus, expanding over a period of
30+ years (Ross, Morrison, & Lowther, 2010). With the evolution of technology itself, the
classroom application of pertinent instructional technology is the subject of critique. Clark &
Feldon challenge the perceptions of student engagement, motivation, teacher instructional
strategy choice as well as multimedia mediated pedagogical influence (R. Clark & Feldon,
2005). The concept of differentiated technology fluency, where in contrasting levels of
technological fluency exists as a function of age, underpins the contrasting metaphor of digital
immigrants as opposed to digital natives (Peggy A. Ertmer, 2005; Guo, Dobson, & Petrina,
2008) . Ertmer extends the notion that technology integration in the teaching and learning
process is easier for younger teachers into a professional development model that focuses on the
need for disruptive 2nd order change on the part of the teacher to overcome fundamental
personal barriers that inhibit effective integration of technology in the teaching and learning
process (Peggy A Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012). From a
motivational point of view, numerous studies counter Clark and Feldon's argument that
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 12
instructional technology has a questionable influence on engagement and cognate motivation in
instructional settings (Samuels, 2010). Furthermore, Brady, Seli & Rosenthal (2013) define an
affirmative relationship between ubiquitously available instructional technology, appropriate
instructional strategy selection and increased cognitive processing in the learning process
associated with a commensurately higher level of student engagement (Brady, Seli, & Rosenthal,
2013). Lowther, Inan, Ross & Strahl (2012) cap the discussion of ubiquitously available
technology influencing teaching and learning with the assertion that students who have access to
laptops perform equally well on achievement assessments yet demonstrate greater 21st century
level of knowledge and skills (Lowther, Inan, Ross, & Strahl, 2012).
This study is an inquiry that seeks to describe the influence of technology on the teaching
and learning process.
Problem Statement
Students need skills and knowledge to succeed in an ever-changing technological world.
Many K-12 schools are embracing technology. More needs to be learned about how technology
affects teaching and learning.
Purpose of the Study
LB Academy is a high performing k-12 school whose aegis is defined by a focus on
science, technology engineering and math (STEM). The purpose of this study is to describe the
role of technology in teaching and learning at LB Academy.
Research Questions
1. What technology is present at the school?
2. How is technology used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?
3. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 13
Significance of the Study
This inquiry provided a comprehensive perspective on the influence of technology on
teaching and learning at a high performing k-12 school. In the context of a concurrent shift to
Common Core Standards focusing on 21
st
century skills, there are few documented models of
highly rigorous instruction where contemporary technology is integrated in the teaching and
learning process. In conjunction with other members of this dissertation team, these results of
this study joined others to provide a body of evidence from which inference and interpretations
can be drawn regarding a technologically grounded pedagogy.
Though several previous studies documented observations pertaining to 1:1 laptop
instruction initiatives, these studies predate the “Great Recession” as well as the current
phenomena of ubiquitously available smart phone technology that is both longitudinally present
and available to even students of a low socio-economic status (Lowther et al., 2012).
Methodology
The design of this study was developed in a collaborative manner by a thematic
dissertation team composed of ten members. The observation, interview and survey instruments
were designed by the group as a function of the research questions grounded in the problem of
practice. As described by a Gall, Gall and Borg (2003), a major objective of the qualitative case
study is to provide a description reflecting the reality perceived by the subjects of the study. This
emic perspective - a perspective by the study participant – was developed from the etic
perspective by the triangulation of survey, observation and interview data thus forming a rich
description of the phenomena of teaching and learning, as influenced by technology, at LB
Academy. In relationship to the research questions defined above, the qualitative case study
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 14
approach was chosen based on the driving interest to describe the phenomena of technology
influencing teaching and learning.
A conceptual model was adopted as a lens to both develop the study design as well as
analyze the findings of the study. Grounded in work originally done by Shulman (1986, 1987),
Koehler and Harris (2009) authored the TPACK model (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Shulman,
1986, 1987). Mishra & Koehler joined Schulman's pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)
construct with the addition of the teacher technological fluency and knowledge to the PCK
paradigm. A fundamental part of the TPACK design is the school context that learning occurs
within. To this extent, the research incorporates Bolman and Deal’s Four Leadership Frames
notion as a framework to organize and describe political, symbolic, human, and cultural
perspectives (Lee G Bolman & Deal, 1991).
The participant school, LB Academy in XYZ Union School District, was chosen based
on a survey of schools compared to a structured criteria developed by the research design team.
The consent process, study design and procedural safeguards used to obtain Institutional Review
Board approval underpinned an introduction to the participant school and participating teachers.
A purposeful selection of participants engaged the observation, interview and survey
instruments. The evidence obtained from these instruments was disaggregated using Atlas.Ti
qualitative analysis software. The thematic coding of evidence allowed for the organization and
analysis leading to findings provided in this report.
Assumptions
In this study, it was assumed:
• Participants were provided a complete, unfiltered reflection of their thoughts and
actions evidenced in the survey, observation and interview experiences.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 15
• The purposeful sampling accurately reflects the collective perspective of the
entire participant pool at LB Academy.
• Methods of data collection and analysis are both accurate and reliable.
Delimitations and Limitations
The following were delimitations of the study:
• The research design included a purposeful sampling as opposed to a total
sampling of participant teachers
• The study was conducted over an intermittent period of two weeks. Accordingly,
the evidence collected reflects the events of just that time period.
• The school studied is a charter school in XYZ Union School District. Other
standard schools are not studied for the purposes of comparison.
• LB Academy is a school that specifically meets the criteria set by the thematic
dissertation group.
The following are limitations of the study:
• The sample size of the school and the participant is fixed and statistically
minimal.
• As a function of the case study design, interpretations are not generalizable to
other schools.
• As a function of the case study design, other interpretations could be made
regarding the evidence obtained in the study.
• The interpretations reflect the analysis of the sole author of this document.

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 16
Glossary of Terms
21
st
Century Skills: Refers to knowledge, cognitive, collaborative and technological skills that
support the production and synthesis of ideas in a diverse and global work environment.
Academic Performance Index (API): Defined by the Governor of California in the Public
School’s Accountability Act of 1999, the API of a school ranges between 200-1000 and serves as
an ordinal measure for the purposes of assessing growth based on student achievement
(California, 1999).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Signed into legislation by President George W. Bush, the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA) in 2001 known as the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB). The AYP is the primary metric of the federal NCLB legislation and
is based on English and math achievement in relation to a specific criterion defining proficiency
(United States Congress, 2001).
Atlas.Ti: Qualitative analysis software designed to catalog, code and disaggregate evidence
based on themes defined by the user.
Average Daily Attendance (ADA): Based on Proposition 98 funding model in California, ADA
is a term used to describe the enrollment of schools and districts. A more technical definition of
ADA incorporates funding model definitions.
Blended Learning:
California Distinguished School: Recognition developed by the California Department of
Education to recognize progressive and innovative methods leading to increased student
achievement and closure of achievement gaps (California Department of Education, 2014).
Common Core Standards (CCS): First implemented by the State of Ohio, the Common Core
Standards are a national set of curricular standards calling for increased rigor, fluency in
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 17
expository & non-fiction writing, analysis of technical literature and creation of digital media a
form of communication (California Department of Education, 2013).
Content Knowledge (CK):
Flipped Classroom: A method of instruction that requires students to review knowledge and
skills – typically presented during direct instruction - prior to coming to class and the completion
of guided and independent practice activities in class.
Four Organizational Frames: authored by Bolman and Deal, Four Frames refers to a framework
that separates organizational and human dynamics into structural, political, symbolic and human
domains.
Hybrid Instruction: Combination of online/computer mediated curriculum access and instruction.
Information & Communication Technology (ICT): broad reference to any technology that
facilitated communication and/or access to online resources.
Instructional Technology: term that generally describes any electronic device used by either
student or teacher to access curriculum. These devices include, but are not limited to, LCD
projectors, desktop computers, laptop computers, document cameras, wireless Interwrite pads,
calculators or other electronic devices.
Learning Management System (LMS): Online software that organizes student submission of
work, delivery of assignments, teacher/student communication functions or other collaboration
venues for students to access curriculum, instruction and assessment. LMS software is key
component of asynchronous curriculum delivery systems.
Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP): 2014 era California school finance reform
mechanism that defines how local education agencies will spend California tax revenues to
provide an education to students. The LCAP is submitted and approved by County Offices of
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 18
Education and provide for interventions if local educational agencies fail to achieve prescribed
student achievement targets.
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF): 2014 era California school finance reform mechanism
that determines funding levels for local educational agencies. LCFF is based on the declaration
by the local educational agency of the number of English language learners, special education
students, foster youth and students defined as socio-economically disadvantaged.
National School Lunch Program (NSLP): Students who come from a United States government
defined level of poverty qualify for a free or reduced fee lunch in a public school through the
National School Lunch Program.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): the 2001 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1964. NCLB prescribes interventions for schools and district that
fail to meet criterion based student achievement targets.
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC): one of two federally
subsidized organizations providing Common Core Standards aligned standardized assessments
services.
Problem Based Learning (PBL): student centered pedagogy where curriculum is explored in the
context of presenting related problems solved by student once necessary (and desired) skills and
knowledge is acquired with assistance from teacher.
Program Improvement (PI): No Child Left Behind (NCLB) defines sanction status assigned to
schools that fail to meet criterion referenced student achievement targets.
Research Based Instructional Practice: pedagogical practice that has been documented in
academic research communities, research literature or professional publications.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 19
Substitution - Augmentation - Modification - Redefinition Model (SAMR): This model related
the Bloom's level of cognitive demand to software/hardware mediated learning activities.
Developed by Ruben Puentedura, the SAMR Model defines the substitution and augmentation of
learning by technology as an enhancing effect. In contrast, the technology mediated
modification or redefinition of a learning activity has a transformative effect (Puentedura,
2012b).
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC): one of two federally subsidized
organizations providing Common Core Standards aligned standardized assessments services.
SBAC is the vendor for assessment for the State of California.
Socio-economically Disadvantaged (SED): As defined by ESEA for the purposes of Title I
funding, as well as matching California LCFF funding, a student is identified as SED if they
participate in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or their parents declare the
highest parent education level is a high school education or lower.
Student Engagement: term referring to student behaviors indicating understanding and/or
acquisition of knowledge or skill in response to teacher determined pedagogy.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): theoretical framework that describes
the types of knowledge a teacher employs to design and deliver instruction to students.
Specifically, Mishra & Koehler (2009) added technological knowledge and skill to the
pedagogical content knowledge framework originally defined by Shulman (Koehler & Mishra,
2009; Shulman, 1986, 1987).
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 20
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to describe the influence of technology on teaching and
learning practice in the context of a high technology use k-12 school. The basic observation
underpinning this study notes the consistent use of emergent instructional technology to enhance
or replace previous iterations of technology, as opposed to the use of instructional technology in
a manner that transforms teaching and learning. This study describes the available technology,
professional and student practices and perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning
at LB Academy.
This chapter grounds the study in a retrospective of instructional technology use, a
description of 21st century skills and a discussion of emerging Common Core Standards related
practice. A discussion of the impact of technology will draw dichotomy of positive vs. negative
attributes, a description of perceived barriers and known issues and a discussion of teacher
ideology contextualized by a review of technology associated teaching practice. This chapter will
close with a review of known practices that are described as promising models of use related to a
technology rich learning environment.
I. Technology in K-12 Schools
History
The role of information and communication technology (ICT) in education, substrate to
political, economic and professional dynamics, permeates the domains of school leadership,
curriculum, instruction, assessment and culture. The advent of the personal computer is now
inextricably linked to the notion of instructional technology. In California, the California
Department of Education reports per capita student access to computers less than four years old
in publically held records. In the decade ending in 2013, student access to current computer
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 21
technology and broadband connectivity increased by only 10% and 11%, respectively (California
Department of Education, 2002, 2007, 2010, 2012). The U.S. Department of Commerce reports
Hispanic and African Americans are 66% less likely to have complementing or similar access to
broadband Internet connectivity at home and the United States meets only the average for all
OECD countries in terms of Internet access (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012). California's
effectively stagnant installation of base computer technology and necessary infrastructure
mirrored the nation's average performance compared to similar countries in similar metrics. This
substantiates the current assertion that the educational establishment provides evidence of neither
poise nor progress towards progressive implementation of technology in the classroom, let alone
society as a whole.
The increasing diversity and availability of technology in the k-12 classroom does not
associate to an increase in student performance. Researchers have noted the high rate of
technological evolution is not linearly correlated to a change in strategy nor outcomes (Cuban,
2010; Halverson & Smith, 2010). With the last decade witnessing evolving technology in the
face of the Great Recession, the net result is the continued access of computer based technology
for the teacher, as opposed to the cost prohibitive 1:1 access for the student, underpinned evolved
and projected theories of learning (Halverson & Smith, 2010; Papert, 1980). From the teacher’s
point of view, computers and liquid crystal display (LCD) projectors have become standard in
preponderance of math and English classrooms and to a lesser extent social studies and science
classrooms. This differential is a function of alignment of categorical fund alignment to No Child
Left Behind assessed areas (Adams Jr, 2010; United States Congress, 2001).
Though student access to technology outside the classroom has increased over the last
decade - marked by the iconic proliferation of smart phones, tablets and other mobile devices -
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 22
student access to instructionally associated computer access has not experienced a similar
expansion. Local initiatives have focused on modeling the installation of emerging technology -
many in 1:1 models - but evidence suggests the software development needed for successful
implementation has yet to match the promise of the hardware itself (Murray & Olcese, 2011).
Continuum of ICT Associated Learning
A well-documented continuum of computer mediated curriculum delivery systems
provides a functional basis to delineate pertinent instructional strategies. The above discussion
related to synchronous learning environments where a teacher organizes and facilitates
coordinated learning activities. In contrast, an asynchronous learning environment -
characterized by computer dependent and computer mediated curriculum delivery - emerged in
the last decade. In 2001, work supported by WestEd defined seven categories of virtual
education, as a function of the mode of implementation, that largely remain relevant in today's
environment (T. Clark, 2001). Though Clark’s discussion centers on the educational era of the
student, (grade 7-12, community college, private or for profit post-secondary), Watson, Murrin,
Vashaw, Gemin & Rapp (2011) provide a dimensional and functional analysis describing
programs in the following manner: comprehensive (full time or part time), reach (online
programs that seek students across geographic and organizational boundaries), delivery
(asynchronous or synchronized ICT facilitated instruction), type (Fully online to fully face to
face with ICT augmented curricula). For the purposes of this discussion, the continuum will be
described as a function of the type of instruction: Fully online, blended & face to face,
completely face to face.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 23
Fully online
One in five students who take an ICT associated course do so in a class that is wholly
online in a potentially different geographic area (Allen & Seaman, 2010). The Allen & Segman
also report an increasing demand among adult learners whereas k-12 venues are sparsely
available and largely incomparable due to structure of the programs and application to differing
student populations. The completely online environment allows the learner to completely
determine the pace of learning - especially in relation to other learners - thus being
asynchronized in comparison. The asynchronized, online environment is to a much greater
extent, compared to other ICT associated models, dependent on a self-directed learner. Though
much of the available research centers on adult learners, some groups assert the greatest factor in
completion of online coursework is the intrinsic motivation level of the learner themselves as
opposed to cognitive concerns (Galy, Downey, & Johnson, 2011). Student performance in ICT
associated online instructional environment has been met with mixed reviews as asynchronous
continuum of services has not produced results aligned to anecdotally high expectations (Hew &
Cheung, 2012; Vance, 2012).
Blended Online & Face to Face
By definition, blended learning is a combination of online access to curriculum yet a
student maintains stable attendance in a normal classroom setting for the same course. As
described by Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin Rapp (2011), blended learning accounts for the
vast majority of ICT associated instruction (Watson, Murin, Vashaw, Gemin, & Rapp, 2011).
Similar to the available literature regarding online only instruction, a great deal of research
documents the positive relationship between the hybrid model of instruction and the
improvement of student self-efficacy - a factor that is documented as a dependent variable for
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 24
success in the hybrid model (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). In a review of empirical studies,
Keengwe and Kang (2013) assert blended learning models are highly effective when joined to
pedagogical models such as problem based learning or community of inquiry, where both models
place priority on collaboration between students (Keengwe & Kang, 2013).
Completely Face to Face
The ICT associated face to face learning environment is essentially a common classroom
environment where an emphasis is placed on the use of a learning management system (LMS).
Learning management systems, such as Haiku, Blackboard, Moodle, etc., organize submission of
work, two way distribution of documents, host discussion boards as well as host assessments. As
opposed to the online, asynchronized environment, the face to face LMS mediated environment
promotes greater synchronization of learning activities among students as the regular class is the
primary locale of curriculum delivery.
Learning Management Software
In addition to organization issues ameliorated by learning management software,
hardware competence poses a perpetual challenge to asynchronous learning opportunities for
students. Cuban, Kirkpatrick and Peck (2001) discussed hardware competence, among several
factors, being major limitations to computers transforming teaching and learning (Cuban,
Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). Interestingly, this group noted teachers are either occasional or non-
users of technology - an observation that would not necessarily hold true today. An emerging
conversation describes teacher software and hardware competency as the limiting reagent to
progress in the use of technology as a pedagogical component of instruction (Cuban et al., 2001;
Levine & Marcus, 2007; Murray & Olcese, 2011).
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 25
Several groups credit the emergence of learning management software as a significant
agent of progress related to the notion as computers having a transformative quality in the
asynchronous continuum of computer mediated instruction. Though originally valued for
increasing efficiency of collecting assignments and distributing grades, LMS provides an
important venue for both collaboration and discussion (Lonn & Teasley, 2009). In addition to
facilitation of discussion, there is an emerging - and largely unexplored - hypothesis that the
qualities of the LMS system can positively structure self-regulatory practices contributing to self-
efficacy of the online learner. The notion that LMS positively addressed motivational factors has
been validated in the context of the motivation related qualities of formative assessment in the k-
12 setting (Cauley & McMillan, 2010; Lee & Lee, 2008; N. Li, Hung, & Chang, 2010). Though
it is anecdotally thought that the freedom associated with asynchronous education
(online/hybrid/virtual) options is a motivating factor for students, it appears likely that the self-
monitoring component of the LMS itself may play a positive role in student engagement and
success in these alternative educational venues.
21
st
Century Skills & Common Core Standards
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) defines life and career skills, learning and
innovation skills and information, media and technology skills as overarching competencies
required to function in the current and emerging workplace (Partnership for 21st Century Skills -
P21, 2013). Authored by the U.S. Department of Education -Office of Educational Technology
(2010), the National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) furthers this notion to include
expertise in critical thinking, complex problem solving, collaboration and multimedia
communication (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). A contributing author of the NETP and
Harvard University researcher focused on 21st century skills, Chris Dede, grounds the definition
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 26
of 21st century skills in an observation by Levy and Muranae wherein they note the 20th century
skills of manual labor and repetitive cognitive tasks are those that are being assumed in the
workplace by robots. Conversely, the skills articulated above, joined to effective communication
skills and contemporary technological knowledge, will prove to be necessary for success in the
21st century (Clarke-Midura & Dede, 2010; Levy & Murnane, 2007). Anchored by concepts
above, the NETP calls for aggressively addressing the domains of a student centered curriculum,
engaging instruction promoting autonomy in learning and technology driven assessment.
The recent adoption and alignment to Common Core Standards necessitates a shift
towards technology associated instruction, assessment and cognate curriculum development. A
primary directive articulated by emerging Common Core Standards is for all students to be
competent in 21st century skills (O. o. P. U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation and Policy
Development, 2010; United States Congress, 2001). The Common Core focus on expository
writing supports the development of the 21
st
century skill of fluent and effective communication
in a multimedia rich realm. Originally composed by the Obama Administration framework for
ESEA reauthorization, the Blueprint for Reform outlines a national vision for an educational
delivery model that both calls for technological fluency as well as an increase in the cognitive
demand of instruction(O. o. P. U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation and Policy
Development, 2010). The introduction of the Common Core Standards, an outgrowth by a state
driven reform movement, became the collective policy vehicle for educational reform. The
current authorization of ESEA, as well as components outlined in Common Core standards,
direct categorical money to be used for technology and infrastructure delivered to the classroom.
Despite this mandate, current funding levels do\ not largely support 1:1 student device
implementation leading to a sustained pattern of instruction despite a mandate for change
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 27
(Adams Jr, 2010; Cuban, 2013; O. o. P. U.S. Department of Education, Evaluation and Policy
Development, 2010). Ironically, the enduring urgency to transform teaching and learning using
computers and ancillary technology, first noted in A Nation at Risk, transcends political eras now
embodying the cornerstone of the Obama administration endorsed movement towards education
and employment in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) careers (Gardner, 1983;
U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012)
II. Impact of Technology
The positive impact of technology on teaching and learning is widely held to be effective
and positive yet the related mechanism is substrate to discussion. Study designs ranging from
case studies to quasi-experimentation describe positive student outcomes, even compared to
comparatively technology deprived cohorts, yet the diversity of instructional practice, personal
access of technology by the student and curricular variation confound the development of
unifying findings. Technology’s impact on teaching and learning also extends into the realm of
teacher professional development where challenges exist relating to implementation of
instructional strategies commensurate to both the quality and quantity of available technology.
Technology and Student Motivation
The positive aspects of instructional technology, associated with teaching and learning,
center on observable gains in student achievement with an absent consensus on the mechanism
connecting these two concepts. For the age group of 11 to 25 years old - an epoch primarily
characterized by adolescence - a dominant framework relating to student motivation is described
by Eccles and Wigfield in the self-evident terms of the Expectancy Value Theory(Eccles &
Wigfield, 2002). Work by Pintrinch joins cognition to motivation in a manner that allows the
notion that a student can make a choice to engage a thought process, hence a set of behaviors (a
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 28
fundamentally constructivist idea) based on the perception that what is being learned will be of
value and benefit (Pintrich, 2003). Work in several STEM related areas validates the evolved
lens of an active learner driven by a perceived value of the acquired skill and knowledge (N. Li
et al., 2010; Samuels, 2010; Wang, 2012). In the same manner formative assessment has been
documented as valid source of intrinsically motivated learning behavior, asynchronous learning
has been characterized by learners as having the same motivating qualities (Cauley & McMillan,
2010; N. Li et al., 2010). Collectively, these frameworks more than accommodate the commonly
observed student interest in technology both from theory novel interaction with a new item but
also a documented preference for learning situations where technology is associated with the
learning process. This preference has been explained using numerous perspective including the
cognitive model of game theory, student controlled access to formative feedback as well as a
perspective of increased learning efficiency in the 'flipped' classroom instructional model
(Clayton, Blumberg, & Auld, 2010; K. Li & Wang, 2012; Newman, Deyoe, Connor, &
Lamendola, 2014).
Technology and Curricular Access
Aside from the well-developed association of motivational benefits, technology provides
benefit from a curricular access point of view. Keengwe, Schnellert & Mills (2012) defined an
externally logical connection between an increased access to curriculum when in a 1:1 student to
device learning environment (Keengwe, Schnellert, & Mills, 2012). Warschauer and Matuchniak
(2010) significantly extend this discussion of access. The researchers rightly drew a conclusion
that scheduled access to computers in the context of computer labs or weekly access to mobile
computer carts was sufficient for the purposes of remedial instruction before first run core
curriculum instruction is a clear necessity for ad lib. access our student. Furthermore, the same
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 29
researchers determined there was a statistically significant preference for computer mediated
instruction on the part of students – a preference linked to a perceived benefit from an expanse of
software related to the curriculum(Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Interestingly, the same
group independently agrees with Larry Cuban's assertion that the ubiquitous presence of
instructional technology is not sufficient to improve student learning as the limiting reagent to an
increase in measurable student achievement relates to instructional methodology on the part of
the teacher – a methodology associated with instructional technology (Cuban, 2010).
Technology and Instruction
To this point, this discussion of the classroom’s influence from technology has been
grounded in improved student motivation as well as an expanded access to curriculum. There is
an emerging focus of research relating to the comparative quality of computer facilitated
instruction as opposed to teacher mediated didactic instruction. Jing Lei (2010) found in
association between exploratory use of instructional technology and the underpinning learning
habits of students – a finding independent of subject matter (Lei, 2010). Joined to the discussion
of how learning management systems and software organize asynchronous discussion and
collaboration, instructional technology has driven a change in the process of learning in a
computer mediated environment. A survey of the available literature reveal similar qualitative
findings yet it should be noted there is an absence of research that employs, at minimum, a quasi-
permit a model or any other model of research that produces generalizable findings in
relationship to instructional technology and changes in instruction.
Technology and Accountability
Aside from the express inclusion of technology related standards and related student
competencies, a driving force in the invigoration of instructional technology relates to
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 30
assessment and accountability. Whereas the Educational Testing Service (ETS) has used
computer adaptive testing in the context of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) for decades,
CCS implementation has driven the transition to computer adaptive testing by all states. In 2010,
U.S. Department of Education awarded $330 million dollars to the Smarter Balanced Assessment
Consortium(SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
(PARCC), respectively (U.S. Departent of Education, 2010). Though originally apart of the
PARCC consortium, California recently affiliated with SBAC. In light of the fact that both
consortia are aggregates of the states themselves and the funding federal in nature, the
development of these new assessments has been recognized as largely a function of the U.S.
Government. In the last three years, several states have separated from the consortia with others
publically acknowledging their exploration of other options including the Aspire testing program
(sponsored by the ACT college readiness exam group) as well as a product by Pearson (Chingos,
2013). In light of the express connection between the Common Core Standards and college
readiness, one cannot deny the attractive hypothesis of eventual state partnerships with vendors
such as ACT to provide formative testing systems aligned with the CCS compliant assessment
provided by the same vendor. As Larry Cuban (2013) points out, the current challenge to
implement a technologically anchored change - in light of historic failures by state mediated
education initiatives - will hinge on the policymaker's recognition that success will likely be
anchored to a recognized need for high teacher quality to achieve second order change (Cuban,
2013; P. Ertmer, 1999).
From a larger policy point of view, there exists a need to continue policy alignment to
educational goals while ensuring future iterations of educational policy can mirror and respond
to the dynamic nature of emerging technology. As pointed out by Levy & Murnane (2007), the
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 31
21st century skills needed is both technologically sophisticated and complex in both thought and
communication. The authors contextualize this assertion in the observation that jobs
characterized by routine cognition or manual labor are becoming the domain of robots as
opposed to that of critical analysis and effective communication (Levy & Murnane, 2007).
Mirroring the same evolution of workplace skill set demands is the technology available for use
in the classroom. Joined to both the qualitative nature of the needed skills and the evolving
technology, researchers assert the need for a dynamic policy making process that responds to
both changing educational outcomes and the necessary technological tools needed to produce
these outcomes (Clarke-Midura & Dede, 2010; Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005; Dede, 2005).
Barriers to Implementation of Technology
The professional capacity for change and the organizational response to implementing
change grounds the current discussion relating to barriers to effective implementation of
transformative instructional technology. In 1995, Chris Dede - Graduate School of Education at
Harvard University - testified before the U.S. Congress regarding information and
communication technology in public schools. Likening exposure of technology to students to
that of a person to a fire, Dede asserted the mere exposure to technology, does not mean learning
will 'radiate' to the student like heat does from a fire (Dede, 1995). Clark & Feldon (2005)
independently echo this concern about the nexus between technology, and more specifically
multimedia, and the learning connected to high level outcomes (R. Clark & Feldon, 2005).
Related to the present day, this temporally distant, yet transcendent concern of ICT in relation to
learning effectively stages both the argument and policy implications for the 1:1 student to
device policy emerging in education. Further driven by the technology standards of the recently
released Common Core Standards as well as the emergence of economically viable and
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 32
instructionally versatile devices such as net books and tablet computers, the 1:1 device model is
emerging. In the context of these advances, researchers document the disconnect between the
proliferation of these devices and the acceleration of learning related to the devices (Bebell &
O'Dwyer, 2010; Keengwe et al., 2012; Murray & Olcese, 2011; O. o. P. U.S. Department of
Education, Evaluation and Policy Development, 2010). Related to this idea, a preponderance of
available research identifies the teachers as key component to effective integration ICT in the
classroom - a concept that is dependent on modification of teacher beliefs about teaching and
learning, functional knowledge and skill related to ICT based instruction and ultimately the
unambiguous commitment of an organization to finance the implementation, maintenance and
long term renewal of needed technology infrastructure in the classroom (Peggy A Ertmer et al.,
2012; U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012). Collectively, the presence of evolving technology
demands extensive support for implementation that can and will bring about transformative and
effective change to teaching and learning.
Teacher Ideology
Recognizing the limiting reagent for change are the pedagogical beliefs - hence the
practice - of the teacher themselves, the corresponding shift towards integration of technology in
the classroom is joined to an evolving perception of what defines effective teaching practices.
Where didactic direct instruction dominates the American educational landscape, technology’s
influence on instruction appears to drive the emerging transition to a constructive philosophy.
In 1980, Seymour Papert - a contemporary of Jean Piaget - prophesied the impact of
computers on the culture of education. Papert asserted the ubiquitous presence of technology
would be associated with a renaissance in thinking about education - a renaissance marked by
student driven ad lib access to knowledge where in learning would become a private act (Papert,
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 33
1980). Any person with access to the Internet has available to them an unending resource of
information - some of which is arranged for the purposes of instruction. The 2010 grant award of
$1.4M by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to the Khan Academy expanded the access to
the already widely available online curriculum (Khan, 2010). The realization of Papert's
prophecy, embodied by the Khan Academy's success and recognized potential, is foreshadowing
an evolution in k-12 technology mediated instruction.
Joined to the constructivist origins of John Dewey and Maria Montessori, Lev Vygotsky's
work on defining the importance of instruction scaffolding learning experiences just ahead of a
learner's level of mastery is a hallmark of constructivist learning theory. As opposed to the early
demonstrations by Dewey and Montessori, computer facilitated learning transfers the
responsibility to organize learning activities from the teacher to the student. Whereas Vygotsky
describes this defined are of maximal learning as a learner's Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD), the value of a ZPD to the student (aside that of maximal learning) is an observed increase
in motivation to learn (Vygotsky, 1978).
The importance of this background relates to the disconnect between current didactic
instructional practice and the constructivist theory (described above) that appears to
contextualize progressive and effective technology integrated instruction. The center of a
contemporary constructivist approach to learning is evident by the student centered methodology
where students demonstrate evidence of the desired cognition as a function of teacher scaffolded
problem solving activities. Work by Keengwe, Onchwari and Agamba (2013) review the
importance and strategy of constructivist theory at work in the technology rich classroom.
Specifically, the researchers offer the assertion that computer assisted instruction allows students
to be in command of learning when provided opportunities for meaningful collaboration with
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 34
others and accessing the expertise of the teacher as a facilitator of learning as opposed to a
purveyor of knowledge (Keengwe & Onchwari, 2011; Keengwe, Onchwari, & Agamba, 2013).
Keengwe and others rightly recognize the inherently social aspect of learning in the
constructivist environment. Emerging models of computer associated instruction, discussed later
in this review, span the range of social interactions from highly collaborative to near isolation
where social interactions is characterized by asynchronous interactions on blogs. Ertmer and
colleagues are in agreement as they point out teacher beliefs about pedagogy are a critical factor
in the learning experience of a student. Further, in the event a teacher does not endorse and
implement the constructivist model described above, the teacher is likely to only make simple
procedural changes to the learning process as opposed to meaningful restructuring that reflects
the full implementation of a constructivist notion (Peggy A Ertmer et al., 2012).
III. Promising Practices/Model
The discussion regarding promising instructional practices is fundamentally grounded in
the common framework of the revised Bloom's Taxonomy(Anderson et al., 2001). Where in
synthesis and creativity are among the highest domains of thought, the emergent practices
associated with effective use of instructional technology expressly support this level of
cognition.
The following discussion will bifurcate based on a discussion where student/device
availability and interaction as opposed to models of teaching that promote high levels of
cognition. From a deductive perspective, this dual approach in the discussion will rule out
applicable practices and models of cognition. Conversely, emergent pairings of context and
practice, referenced in the literature and later in the study, will further ground the discussion.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 35
Instructional technology use can be functionally distinguished by primary use by a
teacher or a student for the purposes of curriculum delivery.
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Shulman (1986, 1987) originally proposed the notion that the construction of a learning
experience by a teacher is defined by the teacher's effective use of appropriate pedagogy joined
to content knowledge - a construct termed PCK (Shulman, 1986, 1987). Schulman's pedagogical
content knowledge (PCK) grounded work by Mishra & Koehler (2009) who joined the concept
of teacher technological fluency and knowledge to the PCK paradigm. It is important to
emphasize the addition of technological knowledge was not an overlay to the PCK concept but
represented a restructuring of the planning process of the teacher such that appropriate
technology is selected by the teacher in the pedagogical development of a lesson for the express
purposes of ensuring the appropriate level of rigor. The new collective, with the addition of the
technological fluency to the PCK process is termed TPCK (also evident as TPACK in the
literature). In addition to the TPACK construct relating to instruction itself, the authors
specifically acknowledge contextual factors such as school & district culture, leadership,
personnel and other influential factors (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Recently, a group out of the University of Delaware determined TPACK instruction in
pre-service programs resulted in significantly modified instructional patterns and efficacy as
measured by student performance (Mouza, Karchmer-Klein, Nandakumar, Yilmaz Ozden, & Hu,
2014). Though seemingly inane, this is significant in the context of determining the impact of
re-training tenured teachers and the barriers of technology implementation discussed by Ertmer
and others (Peggy A Ertmer et al., 2012). To this extent, an emerging body of work is
documenting successful methods to intensively re-train veteran teachers in the effective use of
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 36
technology(Gibson et al., 2014). In light of emerging technology focused Common Core
Standards, both approaches -directed at new and veteran teachers - will be essential in providing
instructional equity to students across school systems.
Substitution - Augmentation - Modification - Redefinition Model - SAMR Model
Developed by Ruben Puentudura, the SAMR Model defines the effect of technology on
the learning process.

Figure 1. SAMR Model - Transformation vs. Enhancement

In the SAMR Model, learning activities where technology acts as a substitute or augments the
non-technology enhanced strategy, it is said that technology would enhance learning.
Conversely, according to the SAMR Model, where in technology demands significant task
modification or necessitates a retooling of the task itself, technology would be a transformative
agent.
1:1 Computer to Student Instruction
There are an increasing number of anecdotal reports of 1:1 laptop allocations in various
k-12 settings across the nation yet there is an underdeveloped amount of research assessing the
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 37
models of implementation, impact and effectiveness. Though the University of Michigan's
Freedom to Learn project is well documented as an early, and to this point out technologically
outdated effort, it stands emblematic of singular and seemingly isolated instances where a
research institution validated processes and outcomes related to this model of instruction. This
multiyear grant process joined a focused professional development process to the introduction of
laptops for each student. Within a given classroom - with the express expected outcome of
increasing performance in domains of critical thinking - 21st century skills and overall English
and math performance in the context of a significantly altered instructional paradigm (Urban-
Lurain & Zhao, 2004). In a 2012 retrospective analysis, Lowther and colleagues found minimal
academic performance advantages students exposed to the 1:1 laptop instructional model yet
perception data by students and teachers was markedly positive in terms of motivation and
confidence in the learning process (Lowther et al., 2012). It is important to note the 2012 report
assessed outcomes from a program implemented in 2004 - notably a time prior to the wide
spread access to Smartphone as well as a time period where online instruction (asynchronous
learning) was in an emergent state.
Flipped Classroom, Vodcasting & Learning Management Systems
The concept of the flipped classroom refers to a system of instruction where in direct
instruction regarding the content and required skill objectives is accomplished outside the
classroom via a video presentation and traditional independent practice (homework, etc.) is
accomplished in a guided practice setting inside the classroom. A contraction of video
podcasting, vodcasting is the summary term referring to the production of video based
instruction that is hosted online and accessed by the student on an as needed basis. Though
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 38
seemingly separate, the concepts of the flipped classroom, with the structural component of
vodcasting, have become inextricably linked despite the separate origins.
Furthermore, the concept of the learning management system (LMS) represents the
proverbial ‘glue’ used to organize and facilitate the concept of the flipped classroom. As
vodcasts are produced, educators initially resorted to developing their own web hosting capacity
to organize and host the material, in lieu of an organizational service. Several vendors such as
Blackboard, Moodle, Haiku and others have emerged with proprietary products that both
accomplish the organizational and web host functions. In the context of the recently developed
LMS concept has become a staple to those educators using the flipped learning methodology.
Knowledge Community & Inquiry Model
As originally described by Slotta & Peters (2008), the Knowledge Community and
Inquiry (KCI) model joins a constructivist collaboration model of knowledge construction by
students to intentional learning activities designed to scaffold specific learning objectives (Slotta
& Peters, 2008). The KCI model asserts the need for collaboration among like teachers in a co-
design process where modifications instructional strategies are based on formative student
assessment information. Grounded in the student constructivist learning model, Peters and Slotta
(2010) further espouse the use of Wiki spaces - defined as open access online venues for
collaboration and knowledge construction - as critical elements for the KCI model (Peters &
Slotta, 2010).
Active Implementation Model
Dean Fixsen and Karen Blase, working out of University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, recently articulated a model of program development called Active Implementation (Fixsen,
Sims, & Blase, 2015). As shown in Figure 1, this tripartite model broadly defines the
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 39
competency drivers, leadership styles and organizational behaviors and systems necessary for
implementation, scale up, and durability of innovative practices.
The competency drivers are the practices in place that specific services that support the
ability of the people. In the context of an organization, selection of skilled labor as well as
selection of behaviors aligned with organizational outcomes combine with ongoing training and
coaching support thus driving the competency of the organization. Additionally, the organization
can put into place certain behaviors, or organizational drivers, that promote the desired outcome.
Organizational drivers include systems for monitoring and intervention as well as a leadership
style that focuses on removing barriers to implementation and otherwise promoting consensus on
the organization's objective. Lastly, and arguably a widely defined variable in literature, are the
leadership drivers supporting the implementation of an innovative system. In this model, two
dominant types of leadership drive change in an organization: technical and adaptive leadership.
Technical leadership is the use of expertise to guide development of solutions whereas adaptive
leadership is the behavior of people to value flexibility and pragmatism in seeking a solution
over the procedural and policy implications of change. It should be noted that this model does
not distinguish job types as a determinant factor in the types of behavior seen in an organization.
In specific relation to this study, any persons in a school can demonstrate a functional
relationship to a part of this model regardless of the role played in the organization.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 40

Figure 2. Active Implementation Drivers

Conclusion
It is eminently evident that technology is both evolving and continuing to expand its
influence in the role of teaching and learning. This review highlights education's constant focus
and demand for instructional technology - from the pencil to the calculator to the computer. The
advent and infusion of information and communication technologies - up to and including the
Internet - is inextricably linked to the educational process. In spite of this tidal wave of
technology, the common anecdotal experience of the teacher is the period replacement of the
'old' technology with the newer, more contemporary technology. With progress in the software
development - specifically learning management systems and online curriculum vendors -
gradations of hybrid online/in class learning situations are literally - and technically - de-
synchronizing the corporate learning experience. Both new and veteran teachers are forced to
incorporate new pedagogical strategies to effectively leverage the contemporary technology. As
several researchers point out, the change process faces numerous barriers, of which an evolving
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 41
and rapidly changing vision of needed technology laps the capacity of professional development
to accommodate the change in a timely manner. Emerging models of ICT associated instruction
include embryonic 1:1 device initiatives that lack an underpinning corpus of research validated
instructional strategies and curricula. Though intellectual frameworks such as TPACK exist that
are currently being validated in literature, there is a conspicuous absence of documented
processes that would otherwise inform the re-tooling of the American classroom.
The present study seeks to describe how current instructional - ICT associated -
technology influences teaching and learning in schools that demonstrate both success and an
innovative posture with regards to technology. The absence of information that describes
effective instructional practices and facilitative classroom conditions is joined to a virtual
explosion of information, technology and desire for educational options that extend beyond a
traditional classroom. A marker of success for this study will be to add to the body of emerging
research describing best practices where technology not only influences instruction, but
transforms learning.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 42
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study is an inquiry that describes the role of technology in teaching and learning. As
described by a Gall, Gall and Borg (2003), a major objective of the qualitative case study is to
provide a description reflecting the reality perceived by the subjects of the study. This emic
perspective - a perspective by the study participant - will be developed from the etic perspective
by the triangulation of survey, observation and interview data thus forming a rich description of
the phenomena of teaching and learning, as influenced by technology, at LB Academy. The rich
description provides the substrate of both a structural analysis and reflective analysis which, in
this case, seeks to describe the influence of technology on the teaching and learning process
(Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). This chapter will specifically describe the methodology used to
develop a body of information that underpins both an analysis and discussion of how technology
influences teaching and learning at LB Academy.
Problem Statement
Students need skills and knowledge to succeed in an ever-changing technological world.
Many K-12 schools are embracing technology. More needs to be learned about how technology
affects teaching and learning.
Research Questions
1. What technology is present at the school?
2. How is technology used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?
3. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 43
Purpose of the Study
LB Academy is a high performing k-12 school whose aegis is defined by a focus on
science, technology engineering and math (STEM). The purpose of this study is to describe the
role of technology in teaching and learning at LB Academy.
Background
The role of technology has been differentially studied in the role of teaching, learning and
professional development. In 1960, James Finn noted a shortage of teachers, rising class sizes
and the need for effective instruction as driving forces in the introduction of instructional
technology in the classroom (Finn, 1960). Formal study of instructional technology is varied in
focus, expanding over a period of 30+ years (Ross et al., 2010). With the evolution of technology
itself, the classroom application of pertinent instructional technology is the subject of critique.
Clark & Feldon challenge the perceptions of student engagement, motivation, teacher
instructional strategy choice as well as multimedia mediated pedagogical influence (R. Clark &
Feldon, 2005). The concept of differentiated technology fluency, where in contrasting levels of
technological fluency exists as a function of age, underpins the contrasting metaphor of digital
immigrants as opposed to digital natives (Peggy A. Ertmer, 2005; Guo et al., 2008) . Ertmer
extends the notion that technology integration in the teaching and learning process is easier for
younger teachers into a professional development model that focuses on the need for disruptive
2nd order change on the part of the teacher to overcome fundamental personal barriers that
inhibit effective integration of technology in the teaching and learning process (Peggy A Ertmer
et al., 2012). From a motivational point of view, numerous studies counter Clark and Feldon's
argument that instructional technology has a questionable influence on engagement and cognate
motivation in instructional settings (Samuels, 2010). Furthermore, Brady, Seli & Rosenthal
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 44
(2013) define an affirmative relationship between ubiquitously available instructional
technology, appropriate instructional strategy selection and increased cognitive processing in the
learning process associated with a commensurately higher level of student engagement (Brady et
al., 2013). Lowther, Inan, Ross & Strahl (2012) cap the discussion of ubiquitously available
technology influencing teaching and learning with the assertion that students who have access to
laptops perform equally well on achievement assessments yet demonstrate greater 21st century
level of knowledge and skills (Lowther et al., 2012).
Conceptual Model
The term instructional technology is widely used and maintains a diverse array of
inferences and meanings. Furthermore, technology is a term that transcends the professional
epochs of instruction typically representing the contemporary and available technology of the
time. This study specifically focuses on the use of computerized instructional technology
(hardware and software) available to students and teachers in the context of presenting content,
orchestration of learning and student learning experiences.
The research team adopted a framework originally described by Harris, Mishra &
Koehler (2009) where in the architecture of the learning process, as planned by the teacher,
reflects practical and content knowledge of technology, pedagogy, content and content
knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Shulman (1986, 1987) originally proposed the notion that
the construction of a learning experience by a teacher is defined by the teacher's effective use of
appropriate pedagogy joined to content knowledge - a construct termed PCK (Shulman, 1986,
1987). Schulman's pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) construct grounded work by Mishra &
Koehler (2009) who joined the concept of teacher technological fluency and knowledge to the
PCK paradigm. It is important to emphasize the addition of technological knowledge was not an
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 45
overlay to the PCK concept but represented a restructuring of the planning process of the teacher
such that appropriate technology is selected by the teacher in the pedagogical development of a
lesson for the express purposes of ensuring the appropriate level of rigor. The new collective,
with the addition of the technological fluency to the PCK process is termed TPCK (also evident
as TPACK in the literature). In addition to the TPACK construct relating to instruction itself, the
authors specifically acknowledge contextual factors such as school & district culture, leadership,
personnel and other influential factors (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).

Figure 3. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 46
As Harris & Koehler acknowledge, the researcher joins to the argument that leadership -
both site and district levels - plays a role in the context portion of the TPACK model. To this
extent, Harris & Koehler articulate personnel, financial resources as well as policy influence the
context of instruction. In addition, the researcher applies the theoretical lens of the Four
Organizational Frames to this study (Lee G Bolman & Deal, 1991). Bolman & Deal define
change and behaviors of people in organizations from the perspectives of structural, political,
human resource and symbolic changes processes and environment archetypes.
Collectively, the development of interview, observation and survey protocols for this
interpretive case study intentionally reference the TPACK and Four Organizational Frames
frameworks. A process was the coding process using these and other sub themes ultimately
contributing to a description, findings and discussion seeking to define the role of technology in
teaching in learning at LB Academy School.
Research Design
The spectrum of research is defined by both the nature of data and the methods used to
derive meaning from the data. Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) define qualitative research as the study
of specific situations or phenomena. Though there are quantitative metrics than can be applied to
an observation of the classroom environment, the thematic dissertation group chose a qualitative
study design to document the context, processes and outcomes at LB Academy. As Gall, Gall
and Borg elaborate on, case studies generate descriptions, lead to the development of constructs,
and define observed patterns relative to the situation or context. Though results are not
necessarily as generalizable to other contexts (as are with quantitative and basic research),
descriptive case studies contribute to a larger corpus of research that broader findings can be
found (Gall et al., 2003). The nature of the research questions drove the selection of the research
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 47
methodology. In that the goal of the study is to describe the role of technology in teaching and
learning -not measure the role - the research design team aligned to the case study methodology.
As an overview of the research design process, the researcher is a part of an eleven
person thematic dissertation group in the Rossier School of Education at the University of
Southern California. Led by Dr. Stuart E. Gothold, subgroups independently developed the
interview, survey, observation and document review protocols. These protocols were revised in a
collaborative manner by the entire group and agreed upon for the submission to the Institutional
Review Board (IRB). These instruments represent the analysis of the collaboratively developed
Problem Statement, Purpose of Study as well as the Research Questions. The group members
identified different schools to conduct the study. Though the intellectual content of the
methodology - joined to the definition of the problem and Research Questions - used for the
study represents joint ownership, the dissertation document is a manifest of the individual
researchers in the thematic dissertation group.
The research design began in August 2013 with a known focus regarding the study of the
role technology and it's influence on teaching and learning. Successive meetings of this
collaborative group led to the creation of a problem statement, research questions as well as a
refined purpose for the study. The research design group met with Dr. David Dwyer, formerly of
Apple, primary architect of the APEX Learning System and founding leader of the University of
Southern California (USC) Hybrid High School in downtown Los Angeles. Joined to an
extensive review of pertinent literature, consultation with Dr. Dwyer provided the research group
a unique perspective on the development of an academic program where in technology is
reported to play an influential role in teaching and learning. In addition, observation, interview
and survey instruments were created and refined by the research group through the winter of
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 48
2013. In March 2014, the research design group completed the successful submission of an
Institutional Review Board (IRB) application. Based upon the criteria set by the research design
group, LB Academy was selected as a candidate for study. The researcher received tentative
permission to conduct the study at LB Academy in response to an overture that included an
overview of the study as well as the informed consent components discussed below.
Population and Sample
LB Academy was the candidate school chosen for participation based on a criteria
developed by the research design group. The selected school met five of the seven criteria listed:
1. Academic Performance Index – similar schools with 7+ for 3+ years
2. Structured technology plan
3. I
3
grants (investing in innovation fund) or similar (Intel, 21
st
century skills, etc.)
4. Evidence of research – based practice in technology
5. Mission statement reference technology
6. 400 (students) +ADA K-12
7. School wide Recognition - e.g. Apple distinguished school, High Tech network,
California Distinguished School

Using these criteria, members of the research design group independently selected schools that
match these criteria. It was agreed that school matching five of seven criteria could be selected
provided strong rationale is presented as to the school's inclusion in the study.
LB Academy, recognized in 2014 as an Apple Distinguished School, maintains
postsecondary partnerships with the California State University Polytechnic schools, maintains
an API over 850, recently built and moved into a 50 acre campus a function of continued
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 49
increases in demand and enrollment. The competitive grant process underpinning its charter was
based on an application joined by a focus on science, technology engineering and mathematics.
As of October, 2014, LB Academy had available at least one portable computer, or tablet, for
every student enrolled on the campus. Aligned with its mission, this technology rich environment
is an outgrowth stakeholder expectation as memorialized by its academic plan.
Students are admitted to LB Academy based on a lottery system. LB Academy is a
dependent charter school sanctioned by XYZ Union School District. XYZ Union School District
is a district in Riverside County, CA, with an average daily attendance (ADA) of approximately
10,596 students. LB Academy, with 1356 ADA, maintains a low SES population of 25% (based
on NSLP information) vs. a district wide qualification of 43%.
LB Academy's focus on technology & STEM education, evidenced by participation in the
Project Lead the Way (PLTW) program as well as recognition by the Apple Distinguished
School program establishes both the qualifying focus on technology as well as research validated
problem based instruction. The successive 7+ ratings in the California Academic Performance
Index Similar Schools Index joins the metric of an existing API score over 850. Collectively, LB
Academy meets the criterion set forth for study.
Instrumentation
Observation protocols, survey instruments as well as interview instruments were
developed by the research design team in the fall of 2013. This process was framed by the
previous development of the research questions based on an identified problem statement and
established purpose for the study. Both Merriam, as well as Maxwell, discussed the necessity for
multiple instruments – facilitating triangulation of data – in order to draw valid conclusions
(Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009)
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 50
The research design team adopted the TPACK model as a conceptual lens to classify and
categorize findings for the purposes of thematic development. A key aspect of the TPACK
model is the consideration that instruction occurs in the context of a school is a function of
climate and leadership influences. To this extent, the researcher will also use Bolman and Deal's
Four Organizational Frames to similarly classify data thus facilitating coherent and valid analysis
of findings.
For the purposes of the study, a semi structured interview technique was employed to
ensure the opportunity for flexibility in questioning and obtaining all necessary information to
address the research questions (Merriam, 2009). The interview protocol maintains fourteen
questions functionally organized to relate to the three research questions identified by the
research design group. In relationship to the 1st research question, six questions elicit
information about classroom, personal and professional experiences as well as inquiry regarding
the culture at the school. Three questions, relating to research question number 2, elicit
information regarding pedagogical practices in relationship to expected learning outcomes in the
context of the available technology in the participant’s classroom. Lastly, five questions – with
two structured probing questions – ask the participant to discuss their professional assessment of
technology integration and its role in teaching and learning from the teacher's point of view.
The survey instrument, also collaboratively developed by the research design team,
maintains twenty questions that focus on the participant’s demographic information, access to
technology, knowledge of technology related policies at the school and influence regarding
technology instructional practice. Of the twenty questions, eleven specifically discuss technology
availability and perception informational part of participant relating to the role of technology in
teaching. Several questions require the participant to assess their efficacy in relationship to
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 51
technology integration as well as discussing the extent to which they value technology's role in
teaching.
Lastly, a semi-structured observation protocol is employed to address the three research
questions in the context of classroom environment. Major subsets of the observation protocol
include observations regarding the classroom environment, organization of students in
relationship to available technology, presence and usage patterns of available technology as well
as other unstructured observations relating to the role of teaching and learning. As with the
interview protocol, the observation protocol acknowledges the impact that occurs when the
researcher them self is an instrument in the research process. Merriam discusses the role of a
researcher as instrument in the qualitative research model. To this extent, advantages such as the
researcher's ability to ask probing questions and augment observations in response to pertinent
data is offset by researcher bias in the context of subjective assessment. Accordingly, the several
steps are taken to maintain and promote integrity of the observation and interview process
including checking, establishing any easing measures of internal reliability and observation and
interview technique as well as, when possible, using external measures to norm for validity
(Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009).
In terms of sampling, LB Academy maintains a teaching staff of 12 teachers as well as
two administrators. The survey instrument was administered to the entire teaching faculty.
Purposeful sampling was employed to select six teachers to conduct follow-up interviews as well
as classroom observations. Purposeful sampling in this context included using indicators such as
anecdotal information, known and strong association with the use of technology in instruction as
well as other intangible factors evident to the researcher.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 52
Consent Process
The consent process is fundamentally based in a collective concern stemming from
historical events of the 20th century. The National Commission on the Protection of Human
Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research authored a seminal work called The Belmont
Report in 1978 (Biomedical & Behavioral Research, 1978). The Belmont Report outlines the
philosophical underpins related to basic human rights within the context of biomedical and/or
during behavioral research processes. The Belmont Report itself, in both structure and content, is
reflected in contemporary structures of Institutional Review Boards as well as contemporary
consent processes. In this context, there is an express need to obtain consent from subjects both
based on the historic obligation described by the Belmont report as well as the current need to
ensure the validity of the outcome of the investigation. It is a generally accepted assumption of
the consent process that selected participants, who know both their rights as well as the purpose
of the investigation are likely to provide the most accurate data as compared to those under any
modification of the above parameters.
Also a part of the consent process, is a discussion with the interview and observation
subjects regarding the basis of their selection. Within the frame of the purpose, problem and
research questions relating to the study, there exists a specific context that relates to the intended
outcomes of the study. Specifically, this study sought to describe how technology affects
teaching and learning in the context of a technology rich classrooms associated with high levels
of learning. As a part of the consent process, this rationale was shared with selected participants
for both orientation to the purpose of the project as well as demonstrating transparency regarding
describing the nature of the intended outputs of the investigation.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 53
Data Collection
The collection of data took place over a period of three months. An initial search of
publicly available information regarding LB Academy affirmed its candidacy as well as
contributed to the document pool available for analysis. After recruiting the campus to be a
participant the study, a process that involved a face-to-face meeting with the Principal, a site
visitation schedule was collaboratively developed with the research design and the participant
school. The Principal of participating school contributed to the observation process with a
recommendation that the observations of the school be conducted over a period of time to reflect
the timely culmination of technology rich instruction. Furthermore, the researcher incorporated
the participant interest in having the multiple observations reflect the longitudinal impact of
technology at the site as opposed to a one day prospectus that may or may not have coincided
with optimal technology integration in the teaching and learning process. In addition to the
survey, observation and interview protocols, site documents such as the master schedule, daily
bell schedule, technology plan, LB Academy charter application, LB Academy California
Distinguished school application and photo documentation of the campus were used to support
the qualitative coding process that collectively produced a rich description of the practices
evident to the researcher. In addition to the teachers, both administrators at LB Academy were
subject to the interview and survey protocols. In that their contributions contribute to the context
component of the TPACK model as well as are clearly subject to an analysis through the lens of
Bolman & Deal's Four Organizational Frames model. No incentives were used to elicit staff
participation or compel, influence or otherwise potentially and intentionally modify participant
responses.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 54
Validity and Reliability
Numerous authors largely agree on common methods to maintain and promote validity
and reliability and qualitative research. Gall, Gall and Borg (2003) discuss Robert Yin's
contribution to the field of case study research – a contribution that classifies validity reliability
in relationship to constructively address both concerns (Gall et al., 2003; Yin, 1981, 1989).
Specifically, Yin provides a post-positivist perspective on the concepts of construct, internal and
external validity. Furthermore, Yin discusses the notion of reliability in relationship to case study
findings commenting that the generalizability of case study findings is an important concept yet
is of lesser concern in qualitative research (Yin, 1989).
For the purposes of this study, the researcher adopted a post positivist construct to
identify and implement specific strategies to promote and ensure validity of findings. In so far
that the research design team chose to use four instruments – namely observation, interview,
survey and document review methodology – these actions embodied the notion of the method
known as triangulation. Triangulation is a navigational technique by which sailors would relate
relative distance to multiple distant points to establish position on a map. In the context of
qualitative research, the triangulation technique describes the use of multiple sources of
information are used to determine multiple points of thematic convergence. Denzin (1978)
differentiated four types of triangulation that namely compare and contrast multiple data sources,
evidence collected by multiple investigators, comparison of multiple theories as well as the
crossing of data among participants within the study using the same method (Denzin, 1978). As
described by numerous authors and works, including Creswell (2003), Gall, Gall & Borg (2003),
Merriam (2009) and Maxwell (2012), this study will not only use several methods of
triangulation described above, but also will employ member checking, outlier analysis as well as
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 55
a method to ensure an audit trail of documentation is maintained for the purposes of analysis and
the development of valid and reliable conclusions.
In the process of member checking was accomplished primarily through the interview
instrument implementation. The member checking notion itself states that the researcher would
provide information to a participant for their clarification and/or confirmation. In the context of
an interview, probing questions joined primary questions in the instrument as the venue for
implementation of this process. Agreement between participants formed tangible links between
data points in the coding process thus underpinning the development of specific thematic
findings.
The researcher employed the use of a digital archival and coding software system called
ATLAS.ti (Muhr, 1989). ATLAS.ti is used to catalog and facilitate the coding process that
underpins the structured analysis and reflective reporting in the case study process. In addition to
the coding of transcribed interviews, the software was used to code survey results as well as
observation data including photographic images taken that excluded any human participants.
Data Analysis
The researcher engaged a six step method for data analysis as articulated by Creswell
(2009):
1. Using ATLAS.ti, data was organized and prepared for analysis. All interviews were
transcribed within 24 hours of the original interview using Microsoft Word. An initial
coding system was developed based on the TPACK theoretical framework as well as
Bolman & Deal's Four Organizational Frames.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 56
2. The researcher conducted an initial survey of the corpus of data with the objective of
identifying additional trends and themes. Additional themes were added to the listing of
categories used in the coding process based on recurring appearance.
3. Again in the context of the ATLAS.ti software, the coding process was completed using
data from all instruments and documents. Categorized data was re-organized by theme
and reviewed by the researcher.
4. The reorganized data, aggregated by theme, was vetted for additional subthemes not
initially part of the coding survey.
5. A narrative was developed by the researcher representing an aggregation of observation,
interview and participant perception data. This narrative was organized largely in
chronological order when possible.
6. The researcher used the corpus of data, as well as the rich description derived from the
data to draw conclusions and interpretations relating to the research questions.
Summary
The objective of this chapter was to provide a comprehensive perspective of the methods
used to address the research questions relating to the influence of technology in teaching and
learning. The goal of this case study was to enhance the community of knowledge relating to the
subject. In the continuum of research methodology, ranging qualitative and quantitative
methodology, the case study design has the specific goal of documenting the phenomena and
relating the phenomenon to a known theoretical framework. In the case of LB Academy, external
and internal perception data – in the form of observation and survey data – was joined to
available documentation and personal interview data to develop a perspective of how technology
influences the pedagogical construction of the learning process, the delivery of content
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 57
knowledge and the role of contextual factors that collectively facilitate the learning experience of
students.

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 58
Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this study is to study the role of technology in teaching and learning at a
high performing school. This study recognizes a contemporary in education that students need
skills and knowledge to succeed in an ever-changing technological world. Many k-12 schools
are embracing technology yet more needs to be learned about how technology affects teaching
and learning. This study is significant in that the vast majority of published work regarding
technology enhanced education predates the "Great Recession" and does not reflect paradigm
shifting impact of the ubiquitously available smart phone phenomena. In addition, the current
body of work describes associations of high performance and technology associated instruction
yet do not describe practice correlated with high levels of student achievement.
The data gathered for this study is organized in order to answer the following research
questions:
1. What technology is present at the school?
2. How is technology used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?
3. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
The criteria for school selection and participation in the study is based on a trend of high
student performance (as compared to similar schools), an established aegis of technology
saturation and/or STEM related learning environment, recognition for prowess in academic
achievement and/or STEM related education as well the school's acquisition of competitive
grants.
The study's design called for triangulation of themes via the gathering of qualitative data.
Specially, the study gathered perception data via a survey and interview instrument, empirical
observation data as well as analysis of available pertinent school related documents.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 59
Background on XYZ School
LB Academy is a high performing school in southwest Riverside County, CA. As a
dependent charter of XYZ Union School District, LB Academy opened September 1, 2005. As
of the spring of 2014, LB Academy had a student population of 1,356 ADA as compared to the
sponsoring XYZ Union School District size of 10,569 ADA. XYZ Union School District is an
elementary school district that predominantly serves a local high school district. Geographically,
XYZ Union School District is the functional margin between an affluent area adjoined to a an
area of industrialization XYZ Union school District serves an area that does not maintain any
significant economic anchors and predominantly represents a bedroom community. The
community itself has ready access to two main corridors of ground transportation. In a time
period preceding, as well as the first two years of the school's opening, the community served by
XYZ Union School District witnessed significant increases in population joined to a robust
home-building industry and real estate market. In the 2013 – 14 school year, XYZ Union School
District had a district wide API of 853. As a district, 43% of students receive NSLP assistance,
10.5% of students are English language learners, and 14.3% of students have special needs.
During the same reporting period, the LB Academy had 33 % of students participate in the NSLP
program. Correspondingly, as compared to the 14.3% of student’s district wide who have special
needs, 8% of students at LB Academy are students with disabilities. Not substantially different
than the corresponding area, LB Academy has an average parent education level (as defined by
the California Department of Education) of 3.49 (Cailfornia Department of Education, 2012).
By definition, the parent education level is an average of all responses where "1" represents "not
a high school graduate" and "5" represents "graduate school." A score of 3.49 demonstrates that
the average parent has been the recipient of some college work and of half of those people hold a
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 60
college degree. It should be noted, that NSLP program participation is a widely held indicator of
a family being in poverty. At LB Academy, one out of four students come from a household
whose college educated parents live in poverty.
In the fall of 2012, LB Academy relocated from a storefront facility to a recently built 50
acre campus. Leveraging both institutional assets as well as outside funding sources, LB
Academy built not only the academic facility but also a football field. Ground space is allocated
for a future fine arts building as well as other facilities. According to information from the
executive director of LB Academy, the facility came in at a price less than half of a school
facility built by a non-charter school. With the expanding student population, now at over 1300
students, LB Academy's Board of Education authorized the hiring of the school principal and
assistant principal. This move allowed the founding administrator a promotion to executive
director with the responsibility to continue growing the charter school, plan for future facilities
as well as manage the increasingly complex fiscal structure of the system. In the spring of 2014,
XYZ Union School District re-approved a five-year extension to LB Academy's charter.
LB Academy is a recipient of both local recognition as well as national recognition for its
academic achievement. In the spring of 2014, the school became the recipient of the prestigious
Apple Distinguished School award. The Apple Computer Corporation recognizes schools who
effectively engage a 1:1 student to computer program. LB Academy is now in the fourth year of
a one to one program for all secondary students. In addition, LB Academy has been recognized
at the County level on numerous occasions for outstanding academic achievement. Anecdotal
evidence suggests the executive director, and the school as a whole, are commonly held to be
exemplars for excellence by Riverside County Office of Education leadership.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 61
LB Academy has three specific academic program offerings. The first offering, called
the Red Track, is an independent/home study program for k-12 students. The second offering,
the White Track, represents the hybrid model for the school. A student in the White Track attend
school two days per week to receive direct instruction with three days of home-based instruction
a week. Both the Red and White track students have full access to all services on campus
including the technology center as well as library facility. Students who attend LB Academy full
time are considered to be a part of the Blue Track. Students in the Blue Track experience a
traditional school setting and have access to the school's athletic programs. Students in this
setting are subject to the school’s high academic expectations as well as a traditional disciplinary
structure. From a program offering point of view, LB Academy is a partner in the Project Lead
the Way program. As a part of the STEM focused engineering and biomedical academy
programs, successful graduates will have preferential admission to impacted STEM majors in the
California State University system as well as 40 plus universities across other states. As of the
fall in 2014, the PLTW program was implemented at all grades at LB Academy("Project Lead
the Way - STEM Program," 2014).
LB Academy's focus on technology associated with learning is evident in a publically
available statement:
In early 2010 [redacted name] Academy worked with teachers, parents and technologists
to research a potential ‘One-to-One Laptops for Learning Program’. [redacted name] has
always had a charter which emphasizes the importance of science and technology.
Initially [redacted name] built a small computer lab, which began to grow with our
program. In 2009 it became clear that students needed more access to computers as we
began to see just how powerful this tool was.

This statement is joined to the mission statement of LB Academy below:
To create a school that is highly regarded for academic excellence within a flexible and
innovative learning environment that will effectively develop, sustain and enhance the
skills necessary to be lifelong learners and productive citizens.

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 62

Participants
The participants in the study included LB Academy administrators and teachers. In
consultation with the executive director, it was determined that the study would look at the entire
K-12 academic program. Specifically, the study looks at four elementary teachers, four middle
school teachers and four high school teachers. Each teacher is anecdotally regarded as being
fluent in technology, progressive in terms of practice and otherwise a model for innovation. Of
the 12 teachers, two also serve as certificated support staff. The first organizes site based
technology literacy and technology based instruction and other organizes the STEM focused
PLTW science instruction. Lastly, all three site administrators were invited to participate in the
study. Two of the three site administrators – the principal and assistant principal – are new to the
site this year. The current executive director, who previously served as the inaugural principal of
the site, participated in both the interview and survey portion of study. The other two site
administrators declined the survey portion of the study citing that were their brief existence on
the campus as well as the disconnect between their roles and the focus of the survey questions.
The 12 teachers represent over a third of the Blue Track teachers who are responsible for
delivering the full-time direct instruction academic program. Of the 12 teachers, 11 were full
participants in the study and one declined citing emergent events that precluded their availability
for a portion of the study.
Table 1, below, provides insight in the relative confidence level of using technology
relative to demographic information. Notably, 66% of teachers in the study are not recent
college graduates nor within the first five years of the profession. Though not individually
disaggregated, there appears to be a positive correlation between length of service/age and
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 63
confidence in technology use. A secondary teacher commented that the relative confidence level
among older staff members was, "not what one would expect." Though this person’s
commentary on a collective staff competency was grounded in perception and self-described
intuition, information provided later in this chapter regarding support for implementation may
add to describing a mechanism for this 'counter-intuitive' finding.
Table 1

Participant Demographics vs. Perceived Technology Fluency
Which of the following age group are you?
24 yrs. or
less
24-30 years 30-40 years 40+ years Total
How long have
you been
teaching?
0-2 years 1 0 0 1 2
3-5 years 0 1 1 0 2
6-10 years 0 0 2 1 3
10+ years 0 0 2 3 5
Total 1 1 5 5 12

What is your
current skill
level with
technology?
“I avoid it” to novice 0 0 0 0 0
Somewhat proficient 0 0 1 0 1
Proficient 0 1 4 4 9
Advanced 1 0 0 1 2
Total 1 1 5 5 12

Summary of Data Collection
Initial Visits
The timeline between identification of the site, approval through the USC IRB process
and initial contact with the executive director at LB Academy occurred within approximately a
four week time period. Approximately 2 weeks prior to the visitation, a meeting was scheduled
between the researcher and the Executive Director at LB Academy. During this initial meeting,
an overview of the study was provided as well as a copy of all research instruments. The
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 64
researcher and the executive director identified the week of visitation at the conclusion of the
meeting as well as an additional meeting date to meet with the teacher participants in the study.
Approximately one week after the initial meeting, the researcher held a meeting with 8 of
the 11 participating teachers in the study. The three teachers are available to come to the
meeting received email correspondences with the same information provided the face-to-face
meeting. During this meeting, the researcher provided informed consent documentation, a
description of the project, discussed options for the future visitation as well as provided
information regarding the survey distribution. At a later time, a tentative schedule for visitations
was provided by email and 2 of 11 teachers requested different times for the express purpose of
aligning the tech rich lesson to the visitation schedule. The finalized visitation schedule, as well
as an additional digital copy of the informed consent documentation, was emailed to all teachers
the week prior to the visitation in October, 2014. As noted above, there are only 11 participating
teachers in the study. A 12th teacher received information regarding the study but declined
participation.
Survey Distribution
The survey instrument developed by the dissertation group was delivered by a digital
methods using Qualtrics software. Within the construction of the survey, all participants
received an anonymous email link by software to participate in the survey. The researcher was
not able to relate participant responses other than by way of the entire group. A second wave of
survey links was sent to the three administrators on the LB Academy campus. Two of the three
administrators declined participation in the survey portion of study. The sole administrator
survey respondent was the inaugural principal of the school and current executive director of LB
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 65
Academy. The two participants who declined the survey portion of the study are new to the
campus within the last two months yet participated in the interview portion of the study.
Observations and Interviews
Observations were completed with a clear focus on the observer being as least intrusive
as possible on instructional process. In light of the approved methodology, as well as an
agreement with the leadership of LB Academy, the researcher took explicit steps to not interact
with students for research related purposes. To this extent the researcher entered the classroom,
took an available seat on the periphery of the classroom. The observation lasted for no less than
45 minutes in anyone classroom on the campus. In addition to classroom observations, the
researcher made observations regarding the facility, the school environment, intangible cultural
aspects such as campus tone and other indicators that related to the aegis of the study. Once
observations were completed, written notes were transcribed for the purposes of coding and
digital archiving.
Participant interviews lasted a range of 25 to 120 minutes related to the stated 30 minute
timeframe. All teacher interviews occurred in respective classrooms for the express purpose of
using the classroom as a visual cue in conversation. Administrative interviews occurred in
respective offices and were scheduled at participant convenience.
All interviews and observation notes were transcribed using a private vendor. Transcripts
were reviewed for accuracy prior to coding and analysis.

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 66
Findings and Discussion
First Research Question: What technology is present at the school?
Facility Based Hardware
There are several findings in terms of facility based and student based hardware
availability. All classrooms, regardless of grade level, on the campus have a standard of
hardware. All rooms had a mounted LCD projector with an associated Apple TV unit. In 12 of
12 classrooms, the LCD/Apple TV ceiling based units were oriented to point to a learning wall in
the room where a T-Bar mounted pull down screen accommodated the image. Each elementary
classroom had a mobile cart that held and charged 25 Apple iPads. In secondary rooms, student
availed technology was evidenced by the school's 1:1 laptop program.
In addition, classrooms where the PLTW curriculum was taught had curriculum specific
technology. The PLTW program is a multi-year curriculum that maintains an engineering focus.
The elementary and middle school exploratory programs have topical foci as well as introduction
to deductive and inductive reasoning. The first two years of high school PLTW focus on the
principles of design and engineering where the two latter years allow students to differentiate
interests based on school support of the curriculum. Where in the curriculum is specific to the
three broad grade divisions, so goes the technology available to support the PLTW program
objectives. At LB Academy, students who successfully complete the 2 year introductory
curriculum are offered coursework in digital electronics (high school).
Two of the 11 participating teachers who were observed presented instruction relating to
the Project Lead the Way (PLTW) curriculum. In both classrooms, the teachers utilize both the
PLTW learning management software as well as curriculum specific hardware. At the high
school level, a digital electronics class was observed. In this class students use simple electronic
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 67
circuit board manipulatives to implement a decision-making flowchart modeled in a software
application. In the middle school PLTW classroom, students use software to develop a program
of commands used to control a simple robotic apparatus. In both scenarios, students created a
physical end product using a necessary computer-based tool.
Student Issued Hardware
Students in grades 6-12 participated in the school wide 1:1 laptop program. It is a clear
expectation of the school that students have the unit fully charged as "plugging in" during the
day is not allowed and is not an option. The school website provides information on a three year
lease to buy program. For the three years of the lease, the school provides necessary
repair/replacement services. Repair and replacement of Apple laptop units is underwritten by an
insurance policy provided through the program. At the end of year three, the school offers to
"buy back" the old unit for $200 which can be applied to a new laptop. This buyback program
built a store of available laptops the school uses for students who choose not to lease a laptop.
According to the executive director, the number of students who do not participate in the lease
program is exceptionally small compared to the size of the campus. The implementation of the
1:1 program occurred in a "grade by grade" manner. During the first year of the program, 6th
grade students acquired devices. The successive years saw implementation at the 6th grade such
that by year 3 all students had laptops. By the freshman year, students were offered the buyback
program of which a vast majority of students took this advantage. In support of this assertion,
observation data revealed no class where more than 3 "original white" Apple laptops of an older
vintage out of a total of 25 students were evident. Three of 7 secondary teachers acknowledged
students with older laptops transiently met with software performance issues. All the same,
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 68
teachers asserted that the school accommodated laptop performance issues as a part of their
culture.
Applications & Software
A clear finding related to the diversity of software used for instruction. In addition to
accessing websites for the purposes of research, as well as using various learning management
software applications for content delivery & assessment, students used a variety of software
joined to instructional objectives.
The table below shows software by elementary and secondary students correlated with
observed student learning associated behaviors:
Table 2

Application associated student learning behavior related to SAMR Model

Level Software Name Venue Associated Student Learning
Behavior
SAMR Model
Association
Elementary ShowMe software creation, presentation Modify, Redefine
Popplet

software classification, differentiate,
diagram, creation,
presentation, collaborate,
debate, discuss
Modify, Redefine
Secondary Keynote software presentation Redefine
Quizlet web-based recall Substitution
Edmodo web-based assessment, evaluation,
practice
Modify, Redefine
Project Lead the
Way*
web-based content & rubric delivery,
(self) assessment
Augment, Modify,
Redefine
Robotics
Programming
Software **
software

design, transform, create

Redefine
iMovie software presentation, story-telling,
video casting
Redefine
MultiSym Software create, evaluate Redefine
Socrative.com web-based critiquing, writing, debate,
prioritize, evaluate
Modify, Redefine
Note. * PLTW is an learning management system (LMS).
** PLTW specific software

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 69

In addition to the software applications shown above, there are two additional key
findings at the LB Academy. All students on the campus have access to an institution issued
Google Gmail account. Joined to this service is organized access to Google Document (Google
Docs) application suite. Google Docs is a web hosted cloud storage which also provides free
productivity software similar to proprietary Microsoft Office software. A document developed
and housed on Google Docs can be shared among and simultaneously edited by multiple users.
Observation, interview and survey data indicates that this system is used extensively by the
teachers and administration. In terms of students, teachers report that independent and teacher
facilitated use of Google Docs increases with grade level in the school.
Personnel & Support for Technology Integration
Observation and interview data clearly indicated a strong correlation between the
quantity and quality of technology present and the support and guidance provided by the
administration of LB Academy. Table 3 shows the relative confidence level of using technology
compared to the long term use of technology and perceive support from administration. The
school hold a classified director position as well as two additional technology support people.
Interview data indicates the evolution of technology, manifested in the current visit, is a function
of consensus built vision for instruction as opposed to administratively directed installation. Of
the 12 teachers who took the survey, there is a notable spread of experience using technology in
the classroom in contrast to largely consolidated perception that administration supports the
implementation of technology. There is a notable overlap of confidence relative to technology
associated instruction compared to perceived support for implementation. Interview data from
several teachers highlighted the necessity and benefit of on-site experts in light of the experience
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 70
that technology installation evolved over years and was not an instantaneous, "plug and play"
event.
Table 3

Perceptions Related to Technology Integration
I feel confident when integrating technology into my
classroom instruction

Absolutely For the
most part
Somewhat Not at all Total
I have been
integrating
technology into
my lessons for..
0-1 Years 1 0 1 0 2
2-3 Years 2 2 0 0 4
4-5 Years 0 3 0 0 3
5+ Years 2 1 0 0 3
Total 5 6 1 0 12

The
administrative
team actively
supports
technology
integration.
Never 0 0 0 0 0
Sometimes 0 0 0 0 0
Most of the time 0 2 0 0 2
Always 5 4 1 0 10
Total 5 6 1 0 12

Second Research Question: how is technology used as a tool of instruction in the
classroom?
Observation and interview, used to inform perception data, indicated that student use of
instructional technology is associated with qualitative outcomes such as increased student
engagement and a perceived increase in the creativity of students during the learning process.
Specifically related to this question, the various data sources were used to build a collective
picture of technology use in the classroom otherwise not available to any one teacher.

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 71
Table 4

Perceived learning behaviors associated with use of technology in instruction
How often do you incorporate technology into your
daily lessons?

Never Sometimes Most of Time Always Total
I believe that
technology
positively
impacts student
creativity.
Never 0 0 0 0 0
Sometimes 0 0 0 0 0
Most of Time 0 1 5 3 9
Always 0 0 3 0 3
Total 0 1 8 3 12

I believe that
technology
integration
requires student
collaboration.
Never 0 0 0 0 0
Sometimes 0 1 3 0 4
Most of Time 0 0 5 3 8
Always 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 1 8 3 12

I believe that
technology is
relevant for
both student
engagement
and
achievement
Absolutely 0 0 4 2 6
For Most Part 0 1 4 1 6
Somewhat 0 0 0 0 0
Not at all 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 8 3 12

Table 4 shows the comparative use of technology associated with perceptions related to
student engagement, creativity, collaboration and achievement. Of the observed teachers at LB
Academy, 11 of 12 teachers report using technology most of the time or on a daily basis.
Observation data independently verified the fluent use of technology by teachers, hence
supporting the self-assertion of high frequency use. Teacher interviews revealed a resonant
theme of strategic use of technology. Seven of 12 teachers verbally indicated that student use of
technology was specific and strategic related to instructional objectives. To this extent, one
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 72
secondary teacher specifically emphasized the idea that student use of technology was not done
daily, "for the sake of using technology." In contrast, all four elementary teachers interviewed
indicated that digital fluency concerns required "front-loading" of iPad hardware and software
instruction prior to application to the desired curricular learning objective. Several secondary
teachers, both PLTW associated, echoed a similar concern that related to technical software
related to the engineering program. Other secondary teachers were either silent on the matter or
tangently inferred software use was sufficiently intuitive to students so as to not require process
related instruction. Among secondary teachers, there is an absence of concern related to
hardware fluency among students.
Table 2 reviews the software usage observed in both elementary and secondary
classrooms. In addition, the table indicates the observed level of rigor of observable student
learning behavior or instructional tasks. Notably, Table 4 shows 12 of 12 teachers state
technology is associated with an increase in student creativity. Observational data, as
summarized by Table 2, shows higher level Bloom's learning behaviors or tasks evident during
classroom observations - evidence that corroborated the teacher's perceptions that technology
promotes student creativity.
Observational data, informed by interview data, provided information regarding the
technology associated instructional strategies leading to the widely observed student directed
learning behavior indicative of 5th or 6th level Bloom's Taxonomy cognition. Below is an
outline of technology associated or facilitated student learning behaviors.
Collaboration & Assessment
In 9 of 12 classrooms, technology associated or facilitated student collaboration was
observed as a part of the instructional paradigm. At the elementary level, students were directed
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 73
to work together on a single device in the process of producing a digital product for the purpose
of presentation.
The secondary level - both middle school and high school - witnessed the use of more
sophisticated software mediated collaborative methods. Three of 8 secondary classrooms used
Google Docs to host jointly developed documents or presentations. Using Google Docs,
students were observed to have the same document open simultaneously and collaboratively
contribute content. In the classroom, observed student interactions - during this collaborative
process - were characterized by the following student learning behaviors: hypothesizing,
producing, re-arranging, suggestion, critiquing and defending. In addition, students were
observed asking as cognitive scaffolds for fellow students in the learning process - a behavior
that is accepted to be mutually beneficial from the learning perspective.
During the interview process, teachers contrasted the digitally mediated collaborative
process versus a hypothetical "paper and pencil" version of similar assignments. An elementary
teacher commented the iPad improved the quality of collaboration due to higher student
engagement as a function of technology associated student interest. In addition to providing this
perspective on improved collaborative quality, the same teacher noted that similar content would
be taught in the 1st grade curriculum (in a "paper and pencil" environment), but communication
skills - both interactive and presentation/oration - would not have been as refined or developed in
the absence of the iPad. This teacher connected this observation to the contemporary importance
of Common Core Standards, currently implemented in California, possessing communication
standards as compared to previous California Content Standards. To this extent, the influence of
technology, in the observed elementary setting, supported the quality of collaboration - with a
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 74
concurrent ameliorative effect on student engagement - as well as having a transformative effect
on the cognitive task construction for instruction.
The secondary teacher commentary, regarding technology associated collaboration,
matched observed divisions in software design and versatility. Two observed applications
provided an environment for collaboration: Google Docs and the PLTW Learning Management
System (LMS). For the respective curricular purposes, teachers who demonstrated use of these
systems made highly affirming statements regarding the transformative impact the programs
have on instruction. As noted above, Google Docs provided an digital environment for
collaboration to occur while generating documents. Evidence of Google Doc use was present in
every secondary classroom, regardless of subject matter. In contrast, the PLTW LMS was only
observed in the two secondary rooms where the cognate PLTW curriculum was taught. The
PLTW LMS had somewhat similar functionality as Google Docs in terms of hosting
collaboratively generated documents, yet in contrast, provided a venue for asynchronous teacher
feedback relating to submitted documents, a venue for teacher generated assessment as well as
student self-assessment. Two secondary teachers commented on the contemporary necessity of
students being fluent with Google Docs as it is a common platform in both business and higher
education. The two PLTW teachers commented on the positive instructional utility of the PLTW
LMS while both echoed the importance and utility of student fluency in the Google Doc platform
as it was equally versatile and more ubiquitous in public applications.
The second division of software, pertaining to student collaboration at the secondary
level, focused on content delivery and student collaboration. Two observed applications
included Socrative.com and Edmodo. Though similar to Google Docs and the PLTW LMS in
terms of teacher ability to deliver content to students, these two systems do not host live
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 75
collaborative functionality but provide an environment for communication with the teacher (or
assessment by the teacher) as well as organizing asynchronous discussion by students. In both
venues, observed student learning actions included: reflection, evaluation, debate, synthesis and
critique. Whereas the Google Docs and PLTW LMS maintain a strong lean towards providing
students an environment to have dependent creative activity, Edmodo and Socrative.com provide
students a venue for more independent cognitive activity that is re-assembled by the teacher into
collaborative instructional tasks.
Student Engagement & Creativity
Interview data suggests the purposeful and strategic use of technology for the explicit
purpose of promoting student engagement. Whereas the elementary student exposure to
technology is completely teacher regulated, there is a teacher mediated instructional use of
technology as well as school wide focus on character development using technology as the
substrate for teaching the cognitive concepts of self-monitoring and self-regulation.
As evident in Table 4, teachers perceive technology to be relevant to student engagement.
Further guiding this assertion is independently corroborating interview data from both teachers
and administrators emphasizing technology's promotion of student engagement in the instruction
process in a manner relative to the developmental considerations of a student. From the
elementary point of view, 2 of 4 teachers spontaneously reported the strategic use of technology
to invigorate student interest in a given instruction objective. Conversely, a third elementary
teacher reinforced this concept by asserting that iPad use is frequent but not necessarily on a
daily basis. The three of four teachers assert students have a high interest in the iPads regardless
of home exposure to the same or similar technology. Furthermore, teachers assert this student
interest in the technology is leveraged for the purposes of promoting rigorous instruction. To this
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 76
extent, one of the three teachers explained the pedagogical approach of using the interest in
technology to overcome cognitive fatigue associated with both rigor and time on task issues.
Interview data with secondary teachers further informed the perception data with an
approach to student use of technology focused equally on pedagogical purpose but differentiated
by a purposeful focus on social development. Below is a statement from the 1:1 program
preamble posted on the LB Academy website:
"At [LB Academy] we look to move our classrooms beyond the confines of school walls by
putting a MacBook in the hands of every Blue Track student in 6th through 12th grades. The [LB
Academy] vision is not about buying and distributing laptops to teachers and students, but rather
one of having technology that makes a real difference in the learning experience. The goal of this
program is to transform teaching and learning, resulting in measurable improvements in student
achievement and preparation for productive futures. Parents and teachers must work together to
prepare our students to compete in a 21st century global economy."
During an interview, the director of the school specifically connected the focus on character
education to the preamble statement regarding the 1:1 program contributing to the a preparation
for a productive future. This assertion is supported by expectations and policies of students
wherein they must self-monitor usage, come prepared to school with a fully charged laptop (no
"plugging in" is allowed during the school day on site) as well as general responsible actions to
protect the devices from damage. In addition to instructional necessity of the laptop, disciplinary
consequences up to and including "exclusion" from the school (thus losing access to the 1:1
computer learning environment) exist to leverage the acceptable use of the school
provided/financed laptops. As a correlate to the director's commentary, a teacher described the
school's path to developing present day policies that promote acceptable use and personal
responsibility in regards to the 1:1 laptop program. The teacher stated the original mission of the
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 77
school was STEM oriented but not technology driven from an instructional point of view. The
teacher elaborated by stating laptop technology does not drive the school but it is necessary to
teach the contemporary content, including the STEM content, and happens to be the most
effective venue to reinforce the desire social skills that are reflected in the current polices
pertaining to the 1:1 laptop program. Both the teacher and the director tied in the both the
character education and the technology's instructional necessity to the overall high level of
student engagement and interest evident in the secondary part of the school.
From an instructional point of view, a high school teacher provided the teacher
perspective on the influence promoting student engagement:
"For me to be able to create every lesson in an engaging way and hands-on, I don’t think
I would be able to … I’d really struggle. If I didn’t have that technology piece, I would struggle
so much more keeping them engaged and active in their learning process. For me, I’m able to
present them with an idea and then let them do their own discovery. It’s almost created in a way
a flipped classroom for me, where I wouldn’t be able to do that before. I can say this our learning
target and now you can go explore and then we’ll come back."
In addition to this teacher, two other secondary teachers related the independent quality of laptop
usage to the concept of a student being active in the learning process. This interview data is
joined to an observation by the researcher synthesized from eight secondary observations: during
times of independent laptop usage, students were working on tasks of either individual
creations/productivity or research related to a task that organized around a whole class
discussion. Though this discussion pertains to the topic of technology associated student
engagement, an inference from the independent laptop work is that the student interest - in the
higher secondary student - is not associated with the novelty of the technology itself, but rather
the intrinsic satisfaction associated with the implementation of higher-level Bloom skills with
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 78
cognitive tasks that maintain metacognitive overtones. This inference was later confirmed in an
interview with a high school teacher at LB Academy spontaneously asserted that the student
laptops become a venue where a student develops extreme ownership in the learning process.
Third Research Question: What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and
learning?
A significant finding from the perception data is 75% of the teachers who believe
technology impacts student creativity are the same reflects the same percentage of people who
believe that integrating technology into learning can be done in a semi-independent manner. The
same 9 of 12 people feel that technology has somewhat improved or enhanced the manner in
which they teach. The same perception data provides that the teachers who "always" believe
technology impacts creativity believe that technology has improved their teaching and is
"absolutely" relevant for engagement and student achievement. Interestingly, though 2 of the 3
comparison questions have responses that are polarized into extreme response categories,
regardless of how a teacher feels about the effect of technology on student creativity; none feel
that technology integration is exclusively independent or dependent of collaboration.

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 79
Table 5

Teacher Beliefs Regarding Technology & Instructional Effectiveness
I believe that technology positively impacts student
creativity

Never Sometimes Most of Time Always Total
Technology has
impacted
teaching in
what way?
Enhanced teaching 0 0 7 3 10
Somewhat improved 0 0 2 0 2
Slight impact 0 0 0 0 0
Subversive of teaching 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 9 3 12

I believe that
technology
integration
requires student
collaboration
Never 0 0 0 0 0
Sometimes 0 0 3 1 4
Most of Time 0 0 6 2 8
Always 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 9 3 12

I believe that
technology is
relevant for
both student
engagement
and
achievement
Absolutely 0 0 3 3 6
For Most Part 0 0 6 0 6
Somewhat 0 0 0 0 0
Not at all 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 9 3 12

Of the findings grounded in the perception data above, interview data can be
differentiated into several sub themes.
Technology influences the identity of the teacher during the learning process
Observation and interview data reveal a real and perceived change in the role of a teacher
in the presence of technology during the learning process.
A resonant theme from teacher interviews is the notion that teachers perceive themselves
as "facilitators" when students are using technology during the teaching and learning process. In
5 of 12 observations, teachers provided the content and learning objective prior to allowing
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 80
students to using technology as a part of the learning process. Separately, in 4 of 12
observations, teachers provided a learning objective prior to having students use the technology
to either research information and/or use researched or collected information to create a learning
product such as a presentation or written document. In relation to this observation, the teachers
who used the term (or similar phrases) "facilitator" to describe their role (n=3) were a part of the
latter subset of teachers whose students used the technology to collect or create content used to
generate a learning product. In contrast, none of the subset of teachers who provided the entire
amount of content for the learning process (as opposed to teachers whose students used the
computers to find/generate/collect information or content used for a learning product) made any
statements related to the term "facilitator."
Technology improves student ability to access content & demonstrate mastery
Technology associated ad lib access to content is a resonant finding primary documents,
perception, interview and observation data. In addition to the asserted benefits of Internet access
via technology, a substantive different variation emerged in interview data with regards to
special needs and English language learners. Two teachers - one from elementary and one from
secondary - highlighted technology as a method for students with disabilities and English
language learners to, "level the playing field." Below is poignant and representative comment
that reinforces this finding:
"We have a lot of students who are just kind of with some spectrum issues, spectrum disorders.
We have a huge population of that here and I think partly because they didn't ... it wasn't working
in a traditional school because of the social issues, or the parents pulled them out of a traditional
school and home schooled them because of the social issues. So it's kind of their first
introduction back into classroom life and how I function with other students and being one of 25.
Really, that's probably our biggest ... we have a higher population of kids with language learning
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 81
disabilities and things like that. I think with kids like that, technology helps level the playing
field. If they struggle to write or if they struggle to read a lot of times the technology ... they can
click a button and it reads it out loud. They can visually see a picture. They can type and they
can see what word they spelled wrong. You know that kind of thing. In that sense technology
kind of bridges the gap a little bit."
Observation data supports this assertion with findings at both elementary and secondary level
where teachers were observed differentiating the learning process for students by directing them
to use the computer technology to complete additional guided practice, break from the pace of
the rest of the class or use the computer to demonstrate mastery in an alternate manner.
Of the 12 teachers who provided survey data, 100% stated they believe that technology
positively impacts creativity. Observation data suggests that assessment practices in the
technology rich environment of LB Academy have made a shift towards student generated
products of learning that require synthesis, reflection or creativity.
When asked how the 1:1 laptop program influenced assessment, one secondary teacher
responded:
"It’s performance. It’s all product-based. I rarely give a test where they’re matching vocabulary
or filling in the blank. They do very little of that because in art, and it might be that my class just
specifically, but in art, you can look up all those facts.........My assessments are do you understand
all those bigger connections, not a pencil-paper test that you’re filling in what you can read."
When asked how technology has changed teaching and learning at LB Academy, an
administrator, who is new to the campus, asserted the following:
"It's definitely given infinite amount of options as far as how to show mastery. It gives the student
an ability to show mastery and also gives the teacher an ability to plan and show mastery. It also
gives the students an opportunity to be able to check on assignments and complete work, not only
while they're here in school but outside of school."
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 82
Observation data joins these two perspectives and affirms the practice of technology
associated student production as a method of assessment. In 8 of 12 classrooms observed,
students engaged technology in a manner to create, compile, produce or design a product of
learning. In all of these situations, the teacher was observed providing feedback to students as
well as using the product of learning as the primary means of checking for understanding.
Emergent Themes
Theme 1: Technology as a central pillar of character education
"Developing a habit of mind for success through the timeless principles of
excellence, integrity, and respect."
The LB Academy motto, shown above, indicates the schools unabashed focus on
excellence, integrity and respect. A clearly emergent theme is the explicit and strategic use of
technology as a venue to achieve this mission. Numerous pieces of interview and observation
data provide supporting details to this thesis statement. Fourteen of the employees interviewed
for this study spontaneously provided commentary that supports this theme. Observation of
teaching tactics, observed student behavior and consistent adult behavior embody the motto, core
values and policies that guide this outcome. A representative observation of this theme is that of
the secondary student behavior of having a fully charged laptop as an act of "coming prepared to
learn." In so far students are not allowed to "plug in" to power their devices during the school
day, students observably met the expectation to be prepared and the ensure the technology
enhanced, not distracted, the learning process.
Theme 2: "The "F" word is key to our success - Flexibility"
The six year evolution of implementing, improving and sustaining an instructional
technology program at LB Academy has survived turnover in technology support and leadership
in addition to the witness of evolved hardware and software. Interview, and to an extent
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 83
observation data, indicates the current technology paradigm at LB Academy is a heterogeneous
mix of enduring vision and a regenerative evolution of hardware, software and instructional
strategy. When the original vision of the 1:1 program evolved six years prior to this report, the
school met in a storefront of a strip mall with an organization of less than 15 people. LB
Academy now occupies a new built $50 million dollar structure with an organization of more
than 100 people and over 1200 ADA. As indicated by interviews, observations of student
behavior and overheard student conversation, the technology implementation at LB Academy is
an integral part of the identity, a source of substantial student interest and instructional strategy
of the school.
An interview with the LB Academy director, who happens to be one of three inaugural
staff members of the school, coined the phrase, "the 'F' word - Flexibility - is key to our success."
Numerous interviews directly or indirectly reinforced this theme set in the historical and logical
context described above. Observation of a brand new facility demands the inference that the
newly out fitted rooms reflect contemporary available technology. In addition, interview data
acknowledged the evolution of strategies joined to commensurate evolution in software. This
flexibility to evolve is also memorialized in the Apple Distinguished School recognition. The
finding described immediately above reflects the most profound manifestation of the flexibility
theme, yet interview data suggests that a fixation on flexibility is applied as both a survival
mechanism as well as catalyst for growth - a cultural norm of the school. Teachers and
administrators consistently attributed the capacity to be flexible is a function of the conditions
the school operates within as a charter school in California.
Furthermore, evidence gathered in primary documents, interviews, survey data and
observations provide supporting evidence that operationalizes Bolman & Deal's Four Frames of
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 84
Leadership. Evidence suggests a strong focus on recruiting and training the human resources of
the school. The focus on supporting implementation, joined to a perception of support, supports
this finding. The symbolic and institutional focus on using technology to achieve the focus of
the school and support student achievement is patently evident though the school documents and
the interview evidence describing the focus on character education via technology. Also
supported by primary documents, observed practice and interview data, is the concept that
numerous systems are in cohesively in place to support and promote the effective use of
technology in the teaching and learning process. Lastly, and perhaps most powerfully, the
flexibility provided by the charter environment is an explicit reference to the politically
influenced educational environment created in California. The leadership provided by the
director of the LB Academy in this multiyear journey, organized through this analytic lens, is
highly effective as evidenced by the outside recognition, the high level of student achievement as
well as observable elements of a highly functional organizational culture. To a point, one
teacher's observation that the focus on flexibility is largely a reflection of the staff's trust to
follow the vision of the school's director is a logical inference worthy of discussion.
Theme 3: The critical handshake of adaptive teacher leadership and facilitative
administration by school administrators
The source of leadership on campus is an equitable, and functionally fluctuating,
contribution of adaptive leadership from teachers and a facilitative leadership style amongst
administration.
Teachers consistently discussed the implementation of technology (both hardware and
software) in a context largely absent restrictive policies, procedures or other barriers external of
the classroom. Additionally, teachers spoke of a professional environment where innovation,
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 85
"trial and error", flexibility are virtues that are highly values by teachers and administrators. In
the four years of implementation of the 1:1 program, elements of various technology grounded
instructional practices have both evolved and devolved yet collectively contributed to the overall
success of the 1:1 initiative. Although school wide systems had been in place to provide training
and support, some elements were abandoned when instructional utility diminished related to
student achievement. Albeit known by administration, the collective teaching body drove these
utilitarian decisions.
Conversely, the administration of LB Academy quickly transitioned from a consensus
development model of leadership to a facilitative administration mode in order to support the
deep implementation of the 1:1 device program. Interview data describes the embryonic stages
of the program to be characterized by the build of buy in from various stakeholders on campus.
Once at a critical mass of commitment, the administration chose a posture characterized by
pragmatic support for implementing the 1:1 program. Again evidence by interview data, this
style not only removed tangible barriers of implementation (hardware availability, infrastructure
development, etc.), but also contextualized the "forward lean" of reluctant adopters of the
technology rich teaching style. Teachers who were either skeptical or uncomfortable with the
program were met with the administrative rhetoric of, "what do we need to do or provide to
make this work for you and the kids." Teachers either adapted, with training or coaching, or
self-selected out of the school.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 86

Figure 4. Active Implementation Drivers

The finding above can be contextualized in the model of Active Implementation (Fixsen,
Naoom, Blase, & Friedman, 2005; Fixsen et al., 2015). In this tripartite theory of program
implementation, leadership drivers, organizational drivers and competency drivers collaborate to
promote innovation and performance. In the context of the LB Academy, the teacher focus on
flexibility forms the adaptive leadership driver whereas the administrator focus on removing
barriers to implementation forms the facilitative organizational driver. The school's support
system, focused on training and coaching, collectively forms the third leg of the model -
competency driver.

INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 87
Summary
In summary, there exists a comprehensive organizational vision for using technology as a
core tool to achieve the successful educational outcomes at the LB Academy. This vision is
grounded in staff that is sufficiently trained to use a uniform standard of classroom technology,
curriculum specific STEM technology as well as iPads for all elementary students in addition to
an Apple MacBook for each secondary student at the school. The available hardware, joined to
purposeful use of software, as well as comprehensive learning management systems, modify and
redefine methods of content delivery, student learning and assessment. Staff, teachers and
students associate the technology with an engaging and effective instructional program. Staff and
teachers perceive the impact of the technology to represent an irreversible shift in the paradigm
of instruction towards a model of instruction where digital technology is the medium for learning
as opposed to paper, pencil and books. Moreover, in this digital technology mediated shift,
students develop a greater sense of ownership in the learning experience as access to information
and demonstration of achievement is more accessible and creative, respectively. At the LB
Academy, this shift is joined to student achievement that is, as defined by California's
accountability model, in the top 30% of all schools in the state with a broadly defined label of
"proficient".
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 88
Chapter 5: Discussion
Introduction
This case study, conducted as part of a thematic dissertation research group, sought to
determine the influence of technology on teaching and learning at a high performing school. The
research model of this case study seeks to relate the findings to contemporary frames of thought
related to the fields of teaching and learning, instructional technology and leadership.
Specifically, the study identified the available technology (hardware and software), described it's
use in relationship to instructional methodology as well as described the perceived impact on
teaching and learning.
Using the qualitative case study approach, the thematic dissertation team studied 11
schools using identical survey, interview and observation protocols. A thorough review of
available documents added to the pool of data. Several conceptual frames were employed to
assist in the organization and assignment of meaning of relevant data. From an instructional
technology point of view, the TPACK model was used to conceptualize information regarding
curriculum, instruction and technological pedagogy (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Additionally, the
SAMR model provided a framework to draw conclusions regarding the cognitive demands of
learning tasks related to the architecture of the software used for instruction (Puentedura, 2012a).
Bolman & Deal's Four Leadership Frames, joined by Active Implementation grounded the
analysis of organizational and personal leadership systems and behaviors that contribute to
sustaining the successful implementation of a change process (Lee G. Bolman & Deal, 2003;
Fixsen et al., 2005; Fixsen et al., 2015). The analytical method employed in this study provided
a method to organize the qualitative data and draw meaning to findings for both the established
research questions as well as emergent themes (Creswell, 2003).
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 89

Analysis of Findings
The over-arching emergent theme of flexibility provides depth of field and resolution to
findings explicitly related to the primary research questions. In the first question, the study
sought to describe the available technology at the school. In so far that all students (K-12) had
ready access to a device, the larger finding related to the path the school took to achieve this
structure. Over four years, LB Academy employed a pragmatic approach to deploying the fleet
of laptops and iPads in a culture characterized by experimentation and versatility. In the process,
decisions about instruction and curriculum helped define the technological pedagogy that drove
device acquisition decisions. Numerous interviews with LB Academy teachers present for the
duration of implementation cited 'lessons learned' from theirs' and others' experiences where
teacher input was marginalized, ultimately associated with failure or diminished outcomes. As
the implementation evolved, so did the vision for implementation. A correlated, yet equally
critical finding found the plan for implementing and sustaining the hardware and software
investment must be as versatile the technology itself.
In specific relation to the technology present in the school, a key finding related to the
mechanisms that support the implementation of both the software and hardware. The provision
of coaching and support services must be as timely, as a teacher's desire for competency cannot
be met with insurmountable frustration due to delay in support. The researcher inferred, and
confirmed on several occasions, that teacher need for support is neither coordinated nor patient.
Teachers, assimilating into the culture of digitally mediated instruction at various rates, proved
frequently to be apart of both the leadership of the program as much as the support structure.
The flexibility, hence the success of the school's initiative, was clearly rooted and fed by the
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 90
willingness of people to take on different roles as well as others embracing the role
differentiation without concern.
The second major theme of the study related to the method of technology use in the
classroom. Student cognitive tasks consistently reflected high levels of Bloom's skills when
associated with observed technology use. The activities supporting this finding were associated
with predominately independent use of technology. The instructional strategies not only
facilitated the immediate use of the technology but also supported the digital fluency of the
children. Furthermore, student ownership and task independence was associated with
increasingly higher acuity of cognitive tasks. Whereas the TPACK model explains the broad
necessities of an effective program using digital technology, the researcher employed the use of
the SAMR model to organize, evaluate and relate the cognitive acuity of student tasks associated
with technology usage.
Figure 5, below, shows a graphic developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura used to describe
his SAMR model. Activities that use technology to Substitute or Augment the learning activity
enhance the learning process. In contrast, learning activities that, as a function of the software
and/or hardware, are Modified or wholly Redefined, are those that are said to have been
transformed by technology. A significant finding, as shown in Table 2, 8 of the 10 software
applications used fit into the Modify or Redefine categories of the SAMR model. In this frame
of thought, the technology in use at the LB Academy has transformed the educational process. in
This finding, juxtaposed to the systems of support and the culture in place at the school,
collectively represent transformative influence of technology on teaching and learning.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 91

Figure 5. The SAMR Model

An important finding was the positive relationship between teacher confidence of
technology use and observed technology mediated student cognitive task acuity. Conversely,
though the tactical elements of instruction evoke new arrangements of cognitive tasks when
instruction is grounded in digital technology, a clear and present outcome is the highly developed
sense of student ownership in the learning process. Though correlation is not necessarily
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 92
causation, there was a consistent association of teacher confidence in the use of technology and
the increase level of observed student engagement, apparent command of the expected learning
outcomes and visible behaviors that suggest overall engagement in the learning task.
Additionally, teachers reported (some as teachers and others as both teachers and parents of
students at the school) that the 1:1 program at the secondary level was a key element that
promoted a sense of ownership in the educational process. The endowed responsibility of the 1:1
program was associated with reports of increased engagement compared to previous eras of the
school's existence where laptops were not available in a 1:1 program orientation (e.g. students
used computer labs). In addition, a predominate theme was the responsibility of caring for a
laptop and coming to school prepared to learn with a fully charged laptop was a central pillar of
the school's character education program. The emergent theme of a reciprocal relationship
between student responsibility and ownership of the learning process resonated throughout the
observation of the LB Academy.
The progressive and pragmatic qualities of the LB Academy culture of the allows for
versatility in thought and speed of innovation. Seymour Papert, a constructivist contemporary
and post-doctoral fellow of Piaget from 1958 - 1963, penned an essay in the late 1990's (later
published in a 2000 compendium) used for technology education of public school teachers
(Various Authors, 2000). In an essay, entitled Computers and Computer Culture, Papert asserts
public education's sluggish and conservative approach to implementing change (relating to
technology) was not substantively different than the reluctance of early auto makers to abandon
horse-drawn models while also selling gas powered automobiles. Interestingly, he further asserts
this culture stymies innovation and is consecutively associated with an exodus of motivated and
intelligent educations on an account of frustration. This 'social phenomena' of conservatism,
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 93
Papert asserts, furthers the self-perpetuating cycle of inordinately slow change. As Papert points
out, the 'weak link' to this self-destructive education anti-movement is the computer. Where in
the teacher was the sole purveyor of information, the eventual privatization of computers would
enable unilateral access to information such that the market of education would be forced to
adapt.
The LB Academy is an iconic example of a school were the horse-drawn carriage of
direct instruction gave way to the teacher guided & digitally mediated exploration of information
characterized by a high student engagement in the learning process. The versatility of the LB
Academy structure, and adaptability of the leadership, are catalyzing factors in sustaining the
innovation of the 1:1 instruction program. Papert's prophesy, 20 years delayed, underpins the
significance of this study in that public schools are ardently seeking models of excellence who
have successfully morphed the pedagogy, practice and fundamental construct of a school to
access the power of a 'gas powered' digitally mediated education.
Implications for Practice
The teaching and operational culture of a school is a critical aspect related to the success
of implementing an instructional program. In the case of implementing and sustaining a 1:1
device program, the school as a whole is well served to take an exhaustive look at the various
barriers to implementation prior to the adoption and implementation of a 1:1 program. In
addition, it is important to promote leadership behaviors across the campus - not just in the front
office. This focus on adaptive leadership is highly complementary to supportive and facilitative
administrative practices that promote consensus and innovation. These two points should be
contextualized in an environment where school systems and training are pertinent, accessible and
timely.
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 94
As the study unfolded, answers to the research questions regarding available technology,
its application and perceived impact began to underscore the importance of a larger question:
where does the leadership come from? In large organizations, top down management is either
the norm or the insidious driving force for administrators masquerading as consensus builders.
The success of LB Academy is largely based on the administration trusting the input of teachers
on the needs for technology mediated instruction once the vision was set. As teachers joined the
LB Academy culture, they either embraced the culture of innovation or sought other
employment. The administrative leadership of the school steadfastly dedicated resources and
people to the priority of technology in the classroom. It is evident that teachers and
administrators on campus clearly understand the objective and rational for the program. From a
transferrable point of view, schools would largely benefit from employing a consensus building
style of leadership that promotes and facilitates innovation.
Recommendations for Future Research
To extend the information gleaned from this study, the researcher recommends at least
two major areas of study. From the student point of view, investigations on how students
connect elements of school culture to ownership of the learning process relevant to 1:1 program
would be extremely beneficial. In so far that this study addressed factors relating to adult and
organizational behaviors that contribute to a culture of innovation, affirmation of culture building
strategies from the student point of view would both improve intermediate adult outcomes as
well as accurately inform student directed strategies.
Additionally, the researcher suggests further investigation in the relationship between
student level outcomes (as opposed to school wide) in relation to computer based transformative
strategies according to the SAMR model. In the absence of any corpus of data on this topic, any
INFLUENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING 95
findings that differentiate effective instructional strategies for a digitally mediated curriculum in
relation to special sub groups (e.g. students with disabilities, English learners, etc.) would be
helpful in refining the delivery of curriculum as well as the construction of future coursework.

96

References
Adams Jr, J. E. (2010). Smart Money: Using Educational Resources to Accomplish Ambitious
Learning Goals: ERIC.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States,
2009: ERIC.
Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airiasian, W., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., & Pintrich, P. (2001). A
taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of
educational outcomes: Complete edition: New York: Longman.
Bebell, D., & O'Dwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1: 1 computing
settings. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 9(1).
Biomedical, N. C. f. t. P. o. H. S. o., & Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical
principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda,
MD.: U.S. Government.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Jossey-Bass San Francisco.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). "Clickers" and Metacognition: A Quasi-
Experimental Comparative Study about Metacognitive Self-Regulation and Use of
Electronic Feedback Devices. Computers & Education, 65, 56-63.
Cailfornia Department of Education. (2012). Custom Report - Computer Availability.
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, State of California (1999).

97

California Department of Education. (2014). 2014 Program Information - California
Distinguished Schools Retrieved March 21, 2014, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/sr/cs/proginfo.asp
California Department of Education. (2002, 2007, 2010, 2012). Custom Report - 48 month old
Computer Avilability and per Capita Distribution by County in California (4 Yr Series).
Retrieved January 2, 2014
California Department of Education. (2013). Common Core State Standards - Common Core
State Standards (CA Dept of Education). Retrieved July 20, 2013, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc/ccssfaqs2010.asp
Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student
motivation and achievement. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 83(1), 1-6.
Chingos, M. M. (2013). Standardized Testing and the Common Core Standards (pp. 23): The
Brookings Institute - Brown Center on Education Policy.
Clark, R., & Feldon, D. (2005). Five common but questionable principles of multimedia
learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 97-115.
Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues. Report commissioned by the Distance
Learning Resource Network, a WestEd Project co-sponsored by the Centre for the
Application of Information Technologies at Western Illinois University, October.
Retrieved February, 23, 2006.
Clarke-Midura, J., & Dede, C. (2010). Assessment, Technology, and Change. Journal of
research on technology in education, 42(3), 309-328.

98

Clayton, K., Blumberg, F., & Auld, D. P. (2010). The relationship between motivation, learning
strategies and choice of environment whether traditional or including an online
component. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 349-364.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2010). Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and
schooling in america. Science Education, 94(6), 1125-1127.
Cuban, L. (2013). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching
practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 109-125.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High Access and Low Use of Technologies in
High School Classrooms: Explaining an Apparent Paradox. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004813
Culp, K. M., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education
technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279-307.
Dede, C. (1995). Testimony to the US Congress, House of Representatives, Joint hearing on
educational technology in the 21st century. Retrieved January, 4, 2002.
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning styles: Implications for investments in
technology and faculty. Educating the net generation, 5.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical orientation to sociological methods: New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.

99

Ertmer, P. (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. (2005). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for
Technology Integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-
39. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
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.
Finn, J. D. (1960). Technology and the Instructional Process. Phi Delta Kappan, 41(9), 371-378.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. (2005). Implementation research:
A synthesis of the literature.
Fixsen, D. L., Sims, B., & Blase, K. A. (2015). National Implementation Research Network -
Active Implementation. Retrieved February 1, 2015, from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-
implementation/implementation-drivers
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: an introduction
(7th ed.): Allyn & Bacon.
Galy, E., Downey, C., & Johnson, J. (2011). The effect of using E-learning tools in online and
campus-based classrooms on student performance. Journal of Information Technology
Education: Research, 10(1), 209-230.
Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, D. C.: The National Commission on
Excellence in Education, US Department of Education.

100

Gibson, P. A., Stringer, K., Cotten, S. R., Simoni, Z., O'neal, L. J., & Howell-Moroney, M.
(2014). Changing teachers, changing students? The impact of a teacher-focused
intervention on students' computer usage, attitudes, and anxiety. Computers & Education,
71, 165-174.
Guo, R. X., Dobson, T., & Petrina, S. (2008). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: An Analysis
of Age and ICT Competency in Teacher Education. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 38(3), 235-254.
Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2010). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching
and learning in schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 49-54.
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2012). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 and higher
education: The search for evidence-based practice. Educational Research Review.
Keengwe, J., & Kang, J.-J. (2013). A review of empirical research on blended learning in teacher
education programs. Education and Information Technologies, 18(3), 479-493.
Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering Meaningful Student Learning Through
Constructivist Pedagogy and Technology Integration. International Journal of
Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 7(4), 1-10.
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Agamba, J. (2013). Promoting effective e-learning practices
through the constructivist pedagogy. Education and Information Technologies, 1-12.
Keengwe, J., Schnellert, G., & Mills, C. (2012). Laptop initiative: Impact on instructional
technology integration and student learning. Education and Information Technologies,
17(2), 137-146.

101

Khan, S. (2010). How We Work - Expansion in Access of the Khan Academy (Vol. 1.4M).
Mountain View, CA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Lee, J.-K., & Lee, W.-K. (2008). The relationship of e-Learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and
perception of e-Learning environmental quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1),
32-47.
Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between
technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3),
455-472.
Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2007). Closing the achievement gap through teacher
collaboration: Facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 19(1), 116-138.
Levy, F., & Murnane, R. (2007). How computerized work and globalization shape human skill
demands. Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and
education, 158-174.
Li, K., & Wang, F. L. (2012). Student Engagement: Meanings, Approaches and Ideas for
Educators Interested in ICT Engaging Learners Through Emerging Technologies (pp. 1-
10): Springer.
Li, N., Hung, K.-h., & Chang, C.-h. (2010). A Cognitive-Situative Approach to Understand
Motivation: Implications to Technology-Supported Education. US-China Education
Review, 7(5), 26-33.

102

Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions
and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686-694.
Lowther, D. L., Inan, F. A., Ross, S. M., & Strahl, D. J. (2012). Do One-to-One Initiatives
Bridge the Way to 21st Century Knowledge and Skills? Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 46(1), 1-30.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41): Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: John Wiley
& Sons.
Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., Yilmaz Ozden, S., & Hu, L. (2014).
Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of preservice
teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers &
Education, 71, 206-221.
Muhr, T. (1989). ATLAS.ti (Version 7). Technical University of Berlin.
Murray, O. T., & Olcese, N. R. (2011). Teaching and learning with iPads, ready or not?
TechTrends, 55(6), 42-48.
Newman, D. L., Deyoe, M. M., Connor, K. A., & Lamendola, J. M. (2014). Flipping STEM
Learning: Impact on Students’ Process of Learning. Promoting Active Learning Through
the Flipped Classroom Model, 113.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas: Basic Books, Inc.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills - P21. (2013). Framework for 21st Centruy Learning. 1
Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001.

103

Peters, V. L., & Slotta, J. D. (2010). Scaffolding knowledge communities in the classroom: New
opportunities in the Web 2.0 era Designs for learning environments of the future (pp.
205-232): Springer.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in
Learning and Teaching Contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
doi: 10.3102/0013189X029004011
Project Lead the Way - STEM Program. (2014). 2014.
Puentedura, R. R. (2012a). Building upon SAMR. Retrieved May, 6, 2014.
Puentedura, R. R. (2012b). The SAMR model: Background and exemplars. Retrieved June, 24,
2013.
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(1), 17-35.
Samuels, P. (2010). Motivating Mathematics Learning Through an Integrated Technology
Enhanced Learning Environment. The International Journal for Technology in
Mathematics Education, 17(4), 197-203.
Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-
regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended
learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

104

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1.
Slotta, J., & Peters, V. (2008). A blended model for knowledge communities: Embedding
scaffolded inquiry. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th international conference
on International conference for the learning sciences-Volume 2.
U.S. Departent of Education. (2010). U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan Announces Winners
of Competition to Improve Student Assessments [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-secretary-education-duncan-announces-
winners-competition-improve-student-asse
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2012). The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the
United States.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Trasnforming American Educaiton Learning - Powered
by Technology; National Educaiton Technology Plan 2010. Washington, D.C.:
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education, O. o. P., Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010). ESEA
Blueprint for Reform. Washington, D.C.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L C.F.R. (2001).
Urban-Lurain, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). Freedom to learn evaluation report: 2003 project
implementation. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Vance, L. K. (2012). Do Students Want Web 2.0? An Investigation into Student Instructional
Preferences. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(4), 481-493.

105

Various Authors. (2000). The Jossey-Bass Reader on Technology and Learning. San Francisco:
Wiley.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, M.-T. (2012). Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal examination of the
links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and interests. Developmental
Psychology, 48(6), 1643-1657.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing
evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1),
179-225.
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping Pace with K-12
Online Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and Practice, 2011. Evergreen Education
Group.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study as a serious research strategy. Science communication, 3(1),
97-114.
Yin, R. K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Applied social research
methods series, 5.

106

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

107

Site-based Technology Point Person
Other _______ (or text box)

Technology Access

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

6. What technology software is available for classroom use?

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

Technology Policies

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

Technology and Instruction

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

108

0-1 years
2-3 years
4-5 years
5+ years

10. I believe that technology has positively impacted the quality of my instruction.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
11. My professional development prepared me to incorporate 21
st
century learning skills on a
daily basis in my classroom.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
12. My professional development prepared me for the use of technology in my classroom.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
13. How often do you incorporate technology into your daily lessons?
Never
Sometimes

109

Most of the time
Always
14. The administrative team actively supports the integration of technology into the school’s
classrooms.
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Always
15. I believe that technology positively impacts student creativity.
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Always
16. I believe that technology integration requires student collaboration.
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Always
17. I believe that technology is relevant for both student engagement and student achievement.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
18. The school’s investment in technology has proven worth its cost.

110

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

111

Appendix B – Observation Protocol
Teacher Interview Protocol
Gothold Dissertation Group

RQ1: What technology is present at the school?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

112

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

113

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

Administrator Interview Protocol
Gothold Dissertation Group

RQ1: What technology is present at the school?

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

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

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

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

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

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

114

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

2. What learning outcomes are associated with technology use?

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

4. How do students demonstrate mastery using technology?

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

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

2. What do you consider to be the benefits and possible constraints of integrating
technology into your school?

115

3. In what ways has your professional development enabled teachers to create student-
centered learning environments?

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

116

Appendix C – Observation Protocol
Classroom Observation Protocol
Teacher _______________________________ Date _______________________
School ________________________________ Grade/Subject: _______________
Observer _______________________________ Time: _______________________
Research Questions
1. What technology is present and how is it used as a tool of instruction in the classroom?
2. What is the perceived impact of technology on teaching and learning?
3. In what ways does the school climate support the integration of technology? Where does the
leadership come from?

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

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

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

117

Additional Classroom Environment Notes

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?

118

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?

Observation Notes

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Widely available computer based technology permeates society and provides the populous access to a greater quantity of information on an ad lib basis as compared to the previous fifty years. At the completion of a K‐12 education, students are expected to both be fluent in digital content but also in the creation and evaluation of digitally mediated content. The purpose of this study is to describe the influence of technology on teaching and learning in a successful K‐12 public school that employs a 1:1 device program. Method: using a qualitative case study approach, this study describes the available digital technology, the cognate methods of instruction and the perceived impact on teaching and learning. Correlate outcomes include the contextual factors of leadership and school culture that support the implementation of the 1:1 device program. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Substitution ‐ Augmentation ‐ Modification ‐ Redefinition (SAMR) Model and Active Implementation leadership model (NIRN) provide philosophical frames used to organize and evaluate data. Results: this study found factors such as an innovative school culture, key leadership behaviors on the part of teachers and administrators and a technologically relevant instructional pedagogy were associated with the observable increase in student engagement joined to increased frequency of instructional activities defined by higher level Bloom's Skills. Conclusion: given key considerations that support a school culture of innovation, flexibility and responsibility, a 1:1 device program can transform instruction that is joined to high levels of student performance.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A case study: technology, teaching and student learning

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Technology integration at a 21st-century school

PDF

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

PDF

Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school

PDF

Transformational technology practices: a case study

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Learning and teaching with technology

PDF

Sustaining arts programs in public education: a case study examining how leadership and funding decisions support and sustain the visual and performing arts program at a public high school in Cal...

PDF

A case study: one public school's endeavor to revive arts education

Asset Metadata

Creator Ballard, Alex J. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/05/2015

Defense Date 03/09/2015

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

Tag 1:1 device program,instructional technology,OAI-PMH Harvest,teaching and learning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart E. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Kayrell, Barry (committee member)

Creator Email ballardalex74@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-567678

Unique identifier UC11300593

Identifier etd-BallardAle-3438.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-567678 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BallardAle-3438.pdf

Dmrecord 567678

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Ballard, Alex J.

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