Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Using technology to drive high academic achievement
(USC Thesis Other)
Using technology to drive high academic achievement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running Head: TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE
USING TECHNOLOGY TO DRIVE HIGH ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
by
Amy Marcoullier
______________________________________________________________________________
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 2020
Copyright 2020 Amy Marcoullier
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 1
Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 9
Background of the Problem 9
Importance of a Promising Practice Project 10
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Performance Status 12
Related Literature 15
Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance 17
Organizational Stakeholders 17
Stakeholders for the Study 18
Purpose of the Project and Questions 19
Methodological Framework 20
Organization of the Project 22
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 23
History of Technology in Schools 23
Perspectives of Technology Overtime 23
Importance of Pedagogy 25
Technology Implementation to Promote Equity 27
Methods Not Media 29
Instructional Strategies to Support Pedagogy in Technology 30
Impacts and Implications of the Teacher’s Role 30
Impacts of First and Second Level Barriers 30
Implications of Teachers’ Values and Beliefs 31
Impacts of Teacher Voice and Successful Technology Implementation 32
The Role of Professional Development 34
Importance of Differentiated Teacher Support 34
Context and content specific support. 34
Training Addressing First and Second Level Barriers 34
Implications of Professional Training 36
Conceptual Framework 36
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 37
Knowledge and Skills 37
Motivation 44
Organization 50
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 2
Chapter Three: Methodology 55
Purpose of the Project and Questions 55
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 55
Assessment of Performance Influences 57
Knowledge Assessment 57
Motivation Assessment 64
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment 67
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection 70
Sampling 70
Recruitment 71
Instrumentation 71
Teachers’ Survey Design 72
Interview Protocols 72
Observation Protocol 73
Document Analysis Protocol 74
Data Collection 74
Surveys 74
Interviews 75
Observations 75
Document Analysis 75
Data Analysis 75
Surveys 75
Interviews 76
Observations 76
Documents 77
Trustworthiness of Data 77
Role of Investigator 77
Limitations and Delimitations 78
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 79
Participating Stakeholders 80
Determination of Assets and Needs 81
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences 82
Declarative Factual Knowledge 82
Conceptual Knowledge 92
Metacognitive Knowledge 103
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences 110
Motivation: Value 111
Motivation: Self-efficacy 115
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 3
Motivation: Mood 122
Motivation: Attribution 126
Motivation: Goal Orientation 129
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences 131
Organization: Resources 131
Organization: Policies, Processes, & Procedures 136
Organization: Culture 142
Summary of Validated Influences 147
Knowledge 147
Motivation 149
Organization 150
Chapter 5: Recommendations and Evaluation 152
Purpose of the Project and Questions 152
Knowledge Recommendations 152
Introduction 152
Motivation Recommendations 158
Introduction 158
Organizational Recommendations 165
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Recommendations 170
Knowledge Recommendations 170
Motivation Recommendations Summary 170
Organizational Recommendations Summary 171
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 171
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 171
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 172
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 173
Level 3: Behavior 175
Level 2: Learning 179
Level 1: Reaction 183
Evaluation Tools 184
Data Analysis and Reporting 185
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation 186
Limitations and Delimitations 187
Recommendations for Future Research 188
Conclusion 189
References 190
Appendix A 199
Definition of Terms 199
Appendix B 200
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 4
Teacher Survey 200
Appendix C 206
Technology Interview Protocol 206
Appendix D 208
Teacher Interview Protocol 208
Appendix E 210
Teacher Observation Checklist 210
Appendix F 216
Document Analysis Checklist 216
Appendix G 222
Teacher Informed Consent/Information Sheet 222
Appendix H 223
Technology Team Informed Consent 223
Appendix I 224
Immediate Evaluation Tool 224
Appendix J 226
Delayed Evaluation Tool 226
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 5
List of Tables
Table 1. Regional School District 2017-18 California Student Achievement Scores 15
Table 2. Organizational and Stakeholder Goals 19
Table 3. Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to 42
Achieve the Performance Goal
Table 4. Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to 49
Achieve the Performance Goal
Table 5. Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability 53
to Achieve the Performance Goal
Table 6. Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Teachers’ Ability to 58
Achieve the Performance Goal
Table 7. Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment 65
Table 8. Summary of Organizational Influences and Method of Assessment 68
Table 9. Declarative Knowledge Influence 1: Teacher Survey 83
Table 10. Declarative Knowledge Influence 1: Teacher Survey 85
Table 11. Declarative Knowledge Influence 3: Teacher Survey 88
Table 12. Declarative Knowledge Influence 4: Teacher Survey 91
Table 13. Conceptual Knowledge Influence 5: Teacher Survey 93
Table 14. Conceptual Knowledge Influence 6: Teacher Survey 95
Table 15. Conceptual Knowledge Influence 7: Teacher Survey 97
Table 16. Procedural Knowledge Influence 8: Teacher Survey 99
Table 17. Procedural Knowledge Influence 9: Teacher Survey 101
Table 18. Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 10: Teacher Survey 104
Table 19. Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 10: Teacher Survey 104
Table 20. Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 10: Teacher Survey 105
Table 21. Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 11: Teacher Survey 108
Table 22. Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 11: Teacher Survey 109
Table 23. Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 11: Teacher Survey 111
Table 24. Motivation: Value Influence 12: Teacher Survey 114
Table 25. Motivation: Self-efficacy Influence 14: Teacher Survey 117
Table 26. Motivation: Self-efficacy Influence 15: Teacher Survey 120
Table 27. Motivation: Mood Influence 16: Teacher Survey 123
Table 28. Motivation: Mood Influence 17: Teacher Survey 125
Table 29. Motivation: Attribution Influence 18: Teacher Survey 127
Table 30. Organization: Resources Influence 20: Teacher Survey 132
Table 31. Organization: Resources Influence 20: Teacher Survey 134
Table 32. Organization: Policies, processes, and procedures Influence 137
Table 33. Organization: Policies, processes & procedures Influence 23: Teacher Survey 140
Table 34. Organization: Policies, processes & procedures Influence 23: Teacher Survey 140
Table 35. Organization: Culture Influence 24: Teacher Survey 143
Table 36. Organization: Culture Influence 24: Teacher Survey 143
Table 37. Organization: Culture Influence 25: Teacher Survey 145
Table 38. Assumed Knowledge influences 148
Table 39. Assumed Motivation Influences 149
Table 40. Assumed Organizational Influences 151
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 6
Table 41. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 153
Table 42. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 159
Table 43. Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations 165
Table 44. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 174
Table 45. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 176
Table 46. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 177
Table 47. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 182
Table 48. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 184
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Components of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) 27
Figure 2. Sequence of steps in the GAP Analysis Process 56
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 8
Abstract
This study utilizes Clark and Estes’ (2008) GAP Analysis framework to examine XYZ
School District’s promising practice of sustaining high student achievement through high
technology use. The purpose of the study is to learn how technology is utilized within the
classroom for instructional purposes as well as how the technology integration plan may be
replicated in different organizational contexts. A teacher survey, teacher and technology team
interviews as well as classroom observations of technology implementation and analysis of
pertinent documents comprised this mixed methods approach. Findings confirmed XYZ School
District’s technology implementation to be a promising practice as all influences studied were
found to be assets. Key characteristics of professional development training as well as classroom
instruction and teacher practice were found to align with knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. This study offers tangible recommendations and considerations for
other organizations to employ a similar technological initiative.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 9
Chapter One: Introduction
Since the 1980s technology has been hailed the solution to K-12 education and the
challenges related to student achievement and equity. While the percentage of public Internet
access has increased in K-12 schools from 35% in 1994 to nearly 100% in 2005, teacher
instruction and student achievement has not followed the same trajectory (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2006). Disparities also exist along socioeconomic lines. Low income
schools were found to utilize technology for primarily “drill and kill” instructional purposes,
while more affluent schools applied technology to include differentiated, interactive lessons.
Similarly, teachers of low income students stated only 3% owned the necessary technology to
complete homework assignments compared to 52% of teachers in more affluent schools
(Education Digest, 2015).
Background of the Problem
It is important to examine this promising practice within the context of the problem for
multiple reasons. Strong pedagogy must accompany classrooms to ensure meaningful learning
occurs for all students. Technology alone does not ensure learning (Clark, 2001). The National
Center for Education Statistics (2010), found 97% of teachers report daily computer availability
in their classrooms. While there is a high percentage of accessibility, 13% of teachers stated they
received no technology specific professional development in the past 12 months. Additionally,
53% of teachers received only 1 to 8 hours of technology based training (Gray, Thomas, Lewis,
2010). Teachers’ values and beliefs play a significant role in overcoming both external barriers
such as resource availability and administrative support as well second order barriers described
as knowledge and skills of technology integration. Teacher values and opinions coupled with
purposeful professional development are key components of successful technology
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 10
implementation, but are often overlooked (Ottenbreit, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010).
Context and teachers’ ability to differentiate for individual student needs is what makes
technology implementation successful. Purposeful decisions must be made by school districts in
how technological tools will assist students in accessing specific content (Philip & Garcia, 2013).
A thorough understanding of how to navigate technological tools as well as when and why to use
them are also important considerations impacting organizations and their stakeholders (Rush
Hovde & Renguette, 2017). When technology is introduced without adequate instructional
consideration, learning will not take place and student achievement cannot improve.
Importance of a Promising Practice Project
It is important to study XYZ School District’s successful technology integration as it
relates to student achievement for a variety of reasons. The overarching cause for XYZ School
District’s success is not solely the acquisition of devices due to parent participation, but instead
how usage of technological tools are organized within the classroom for instructional purposes
and increased student achievement. According to Clark, Yates, Early & Moulton (2010), media
delivers a medium for instruction, but is not the reason for learning. In fact, most content can be
delivered in the absence of technology and obtain results if appropriate instructional strategies
are used. Regardless of socioeconomic status or funding source, XYZ School District’s
successful approach to technology implementation is rooted in strong instructional practices that
support staff learning and student achievement.
Additionally, XYZ School District concurrently utilizes knowledge and motivational
factors to provide targeted staff professional development with the goal of increased teacher
capability and student achievement. Teachers unable to effectively navigate technology in the
classroom, lack the ability to support student learning; thus perpetuating inequity and lackluster
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 11
student achievement (Lee, 2006). Differentiated training and support models, spearheaded by the
district’s technology team, have instilled a positive attitude among staff about technology use for
the purpose of increased student achievement. The district has also created an atmosphere of
collaboration as it relates to technology use through trainings and differentiated instruction for all
district personnel. Overall, staff are engaged and open to the process of further integrating
technology into their work in purposeful ways. According to Vongkulluksn et al. (2018),
teachers who hold positive beliefs about technology tend to embrace new strategies and are open
to work with existing technology. In sum, XYZ School District’s technology model is a
promising practice due to its ability to weave technology into instructional content through the
support of effective staff training and practice of honoring teacher voice. The differentiated
approach addresses the larger educational challenge of technology’s role to improve learning for
all students.
Organizational Context and Mission
XYZ School District, located 13 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles, serves
approximately 4,135 students and consists of three elementary schools, a junior high school, and
one comprehensive high school. English Language Learners comprise 4% of total students and
4.6% of learners are socioeconomically disadvantaged (California Department of Education,
2017). Standards district-wide are rigorous. Ninety eight percent of students pursue
postsecondary education and the school district regularly scores in the top 10% of schools in
California for standardized testing. Parent expectations are high and involvement is frequent as
the district offers several parent workshops and student events throughout the year. XYZ School
District states its mission as a learning community committed to personal growth and academic
excellence (“About LCUSD”).
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 12
Organizational Performance Status
While all neighboring school districts have a technology department housed within the
district office, their approach to the challenge of providing technology access to students with the
goal of improved academic achievement differs. Lim et al. (2013), asserts school districts are so
burdened with the financial challenges related to the purchase and maintenance of technology
that they are unable to effectively focus on learning outcomes. Since there are significant
responsibilities to demonstrate returns on investment to stakeholders, successful technology
integration is a complex challenge. However, a successful implementation plan couples high
student achievement with high technology utilization.
Currently, 100% of XYZ School District’s K-12 students have access to technology
while at school and teachers regularly utilize technology in their classrooms to improve
academic achievement through careful pedagogical choices. Four years ago, XYZ School
District launched a personalized device program using Google Chromebooks with the goal that
fifth and seventh graders would bring personal devices with them to school daily. The program
was later expanded to include fifth through eleventh grades. To ensure an ongoing one to one
student device program, the district asks that parents purchase a Google Chromebook for student
use. With at least 75% parent participation support, long term sustainability is maintained. The
need for additional taxes or to pass a bond are also avoided (“LCUSD”). Third and fourth grade
classrooms house approximately one Google Chromebook per student in carts for instructional
use, while Kindergarten through second grade classrooms have access to Apple iPads.
Additionally, all elementary grades attend a bimonthly computer class to engage in various
coursework including 3D printing, coding, and robotics (“LCUSD”).
To support emphasis on instructional improvement and staff support, two educational
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 13
technology team members assist K-12 classrooms daily, district-wide, by providing
differentiated staff support, facilitating classroom lessons, and promoting digital citizenship
instruction. In addition to school based support, the technology team offers Google Training
Camps for various stakeholders including, but not limited to: district substitute teachers,
classified staff, teachers, and administrators to increase organizational capacity and
collaboration. Parent technology workshops are offered during the summer months as well as
professional development training for teachers to implement technology into their pedagogy.
According to the California Department of Education (2019), the California Assessment
of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) scaled scores are determined by comparing
each student score against a fixed point total. Scores are then averaged and points above, at, and
below standard are published. Overall, assessment results show how schools and districts are
performing as well as highlight areas of improvement. Students from XYZ School District
scored 92.9 points above standard in English Language Arts and 86.5 points above standard in
mathematics. State data also shows XYZ School District students are also 82% prepared in the
College and Career Ready category (California Department of Education, 2017).
Neighboring K-12 school districts have varying plans to implement technology into
classrooms. For instance, School District A currently maintains an infrastructure of 10,000
Google Chromebook devices, which are distributed to students and staff. This program
originated three years ago. The district’s technology team also offers staff development
programs as well as maintains all platforms associated with student access and assessment
(“AUSD”). In a district with a similar focus on technology, overall students scored 62.2 points
above standard in English Language Arts and 62 points above standard in mathematics. College
and Career Ready data shows students in School District A were 73.9% prepared (California
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 14
Department of Education, 2017).
According to School District B’s 2017 Instructional Technology Master Plan, the district
aims to provide one to one technology devices through the purchase of 90 laptop carts (38
devices per cart) for elementary classrooms as well as provide take home devices in grades 6-
12. Over a three year period, beginning in 2018, School District B first provided all sixth and
eleventh grade students a Google Chromebook device with additional secondary grades to
follow. Professional development and technical support are also part of the overall instructional
plan of this district. Accountability is contained within Goal 8 of the district’s LCAP: Provide
all students access to technology in the classroom. (“BUSD”). District-wide students scored
26.1 points above the state standard in English Language Arts, but 6.5 points below in
mathematics. Additionally, 60.9% of School District B students were College and Career
Ready (California Department of Education, 2017).
The table below shows additional districts in the region and their student achievement
scores as compared to XYZ School District. It is evident XYZ School District utilizes a
promising practice of high technology integration paired with high stakeholder support to attain
high student achievement.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 15
Table 1.
Regional School District 2017-18 California Student Achievement Scores
Neighboring
Districts
XYZ School
District
School
District A
School
District B
School
District G
School
District P
Mathematics
(points)
86.5 ↑ 62 ↑ 6.5 ↓ 1.7 ↑ 49.3 ↓
English Language
Arts (points)
92.9 ↑ 62.2 ↑ 26.1 ↑ 27 ↑ 18.9 ↓
College and Career
Ready (%
prepared)
82% 73.9% 60.9% 53.3% 35.7%
Related Literature
Today technology influences multiple aspects of our daily lives and K-12 education is
no exception. Throughout the past few decades, technology use has steadily increased and
assimilation into our nation’s classrooms has followed. Technology for educational purposes
has long been touted by some as the key to improving student achievement. However, it is
pedagogical skills, not technological tools that ensure learning. Various instructional mediums
are capable of delivering instructional content, but technology use alone does solve student
academic achievement challenges.
Instructional strategies must support technological tools to provide situational problems
students may solve, connect examples to prior and future learning, offer job-aides as well as
continued practice coupled with feedback (Clark, Yates, Early & Moulton, 2010). Means et al.
(2010) similarly identified interactive learning via technology as a tool for which students and
teachers can interact and engage with one another, but not the sole solution. It is feedback and
discourse that drives learning, not a specific media application. Furthermore, differentiated
instruction in conjunction with classroom technology use is vital to meet individual students’
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 16
needs and learning (Philip & Garcia, 2013).
Technology can be leveraged to improve student achievement when teachers’ integrate
strong pedagogy with media. High quality teacher training leads to high levels of technology
integration in the classroom. Dexter et al. (2002) defines quality technology support as
individualized support where teachers learn methods in which they may introduce technological
tools into their classrooms and construct meaning for students. Unfortunately, this has not been
the norm for the past 20 years. Harris, Mishra & Koehler (2009), argue early technology use
centered on “technocentric” practices such as software-focused initiatives or large grant funded
projects by corporations like Apple. These initiatives focused primarily on new uses for
technology tools, not application of pedagogical best practices.
Previous professional development was standardized and often adopted by states or
school districts, to meet teachers’ individualized needs. In order to support increased student
achievement, professional development training must be ongoing and malleable. As teachers
learn to utilize technology at higher rates, teaching practices, curriculum and classroom
structure may change (Kleiman, 2001). Thus, to ensure positive change and sustainable
incorporation of technology overtime, K-12 school districts must adjust their technology plan to
account for long term teacher support and training. Additionally, training programs must seek
teachers who may lack skills and/or positive values about educational technology use in their
classrooms. Teachers who already possess high self-efficacy regarding technology use in their
classroom may gravitate to further training; thus increasing the technological information divide
(Vongkulluksn et. al, 2018). In sum, professional development centered on technology must not
only teach educators how to manipulate the tool, but also incorporate instructional strategies
such as scaffolding and feedback into a classroom integration plan. Technology like any
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 17
instructional medium is an avenue in which learning can travel.
Organizational Performance Goal and Current Performance
The main goal of the organization is to maintain high student achievement through high
technology use. Technology usage embedded within the classroom is purposeful and directly
connected to instructional pedagogy. A second goal is to continually utilize technology in
college and career preparation as well as encourage student empowerment.
Organizational Stakeholders
The district’s technology team, led by the Chief Technology Officer, in addition to
teachers, administrators, parents, and students are organizational stakeholders that support the
performance goal of maintaining high academic achievement through a strong use of technology.
The technology team spearheads all training sessions related to district-wide technology planning
and implementation. This team also serves as the epicenter for all professional development
training related to technology as well as hardware and software support at the school sites.
Additionally, administrators receive ongoing training from the technology team as well
as facilitate space and support for teachers to receive training and integrate technology into their
classroom content. Some teachers and staff also engage in additional training and workshops
offered during the summer months to enhance their technology skills or attain certifications.
Parents support the performance goal through participation in the Google Chromebook purchase
program as well as actively fundraise for hardware and software through various school parent
groups and the district foundation. Funds allocated to the technology team supports staff
professional development and ultimately student achievement. Lastly, students utilize
technology as part of content specific lessons. They also utilize various platforms for practice
and assessment purposes. Ultimately, students are the beneficiaries of this promising practice.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 18
Stakeholders for the Study
While all stakeholders play a significant role in XYZ School District’s successful
technology implementation, it is important to understand the promising practices of technology
team members and their continued outreach through training and development to support the
district’s other stakeholders (i.e., administrators, teachers, and parents) in maintaining high
student achievement. Moreover, the Chief Technology Officer represents flexibility and
maintains a growth mindset through inquiry and questioning while guiding this work. As an
English teacher for five years with XYZ School District, the Chief Technology Officer
considered technology currently available to teachers and realized the need to connect different
systems into a streamlined approach to increase both technology use and device availability to
students. During this time, XYZ School District lacked sufficient teacher devices as well as
Wi-Fi connectivity. The Chief Technology Officer transitioned out of the classroom to the
position of Technology Program Director and then Technology Director 1 and 2 before
ultimately assuming the role of Chief Technology Officer. In a few short years, the technology
team and district has dramatically increased technology usage. Yet, the Chief Technology
Officer continues to challenge stakeholders and encourage risk-taking to integrate technological
tools into teaching to produce high academic achievement.
Table 2 shows the organizational goal to maintain high student achievement through
consistent and high quality technology implementation in conjunction with differentiated
stakeholder support. Ongoing training and stakeholder participation is required to maintain high
student academic achievement district-wide.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 19
Table 2.
Organizational and Stakeholder Goals
Mission
XYZ School District is a learning community committed to personal growth and academic
excellence.
Organizational Goal
XYZ School District will maintain high student achievement through consistent and high
quality technology implementation in conjunction with differentiated stakeholder support.
Stakeholder Goal:
Technology Team Members
Ongoing, technology team
members will provide
differentiated instructional
support to teachers and staff
at all school sites.
Stakeholder Goal:
Teachers
Ongoing, 100% of K-12
teachers will integrate a
component of instructional
technology into their daily
instructional curriculum
using strategies learned from
professional development
training to support student
achievement.
Stakeholder Goal:
Administrators
Administrators will provide
ongoing instructional support
to each teacher at the school
site.
Critical Behaviors
Create and train teachers
addressing differentiated
levels of technology support.
Utilize effective training
models and strategies to
enhance the delivery of
instruction and ensure
consistent technology
implementation across
classrooms district-wide.
Collect feedback from
teachers after training to
ensure continued teacher
voice and self-efficacy.
1. Actively participate in
professional development
training and seek out
differentiated support from
the technology team as
needed.
2. Demonstrate knowledge of
learned skills through
utilization of technology
coupled with of instructional
strategies in the classroom.
Support teacher training by
providing teachers resources,
time and space to integrate
technology into lesson
content.
Observe teachers teaching
lessons with technology
integration and provide
feedback of lesson facilitation
to ensure 100%
implementation.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to study the XYZ School District’s organizational
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 20
performance as it relates to high technology integration district-wide and overall high student
achievement. The analysis will focus on stakeholders, assets in the areas of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational resources. While a complete study would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders to be focused on in this analysis are the
district’s technology team and K-12 district teachers. For the purpose of this study, educational
technology is defined as technological tools which are integrated into classroom instruction to
strengthen students’ understanding of instructional content and increase student achievement,
while also fostering peer collaboration and intellectual risk-taking. Appendix A contains a list of
frequent terms related to technology and referenced throughout this study.
The questions that will guide this gap analysis address the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that support
high student achievement as it relates to high technology integration?
2. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets does the district technology team
possess that has contributed to the organization continually expanding district technology
opportunities, while also sustaining high student achievement?
3. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another school district?
Methodological Framework
A mixed method data gathering and analysis was conducted to study XYZ School
District in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources as it relates to
technology implementation and student achievement. The district technology team was
interviewed as well teacher survey responses were studied. Additionally, teacher interviews and
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 21
classroom observations were performed at varying grade levels to represent K-12 instruction.
Document analysis of district-wide artifacts such as the technology plan, lesson plans and work
examples were also examined. The various instruments provided for triangulation of data.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 22
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provides the reader with the
key concepts commonly found in a discussion about technology integration within a K-12 school
district setting. The organization’s mission, performance goals, and stakeholders related to
technology implementation and student achievement were introduced. Chapter Two provides a
review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics such as: perspectives
related to technology implementation overtime, current technological barriers, impacts of teacher
voice, targeted professional development, and factors impacting sustainability and equity will be
addressed. Chapter Three details the participants, methodology, and data collection. In Chapter
Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on
data and literature, for maintenance of performance goals and promotion of promising practices.
Recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan based on solutions is also
included.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 23
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Targeted instructional strategies such as feedback and differentiated instruction must
accompany technological tools in the classroom to ensure student access to content specific
learning. This chapter will review technology perspectives and implementation in K-12 schools
over time, the importance of strong instructional pedagogy to support equity and academic
success as well as the role of professional development, and how it impacts successful
technology implementation by teachers. In this section the roles of the district technology team
and teachers will be discussed. Additionally, an explanation of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences will be explained from the perspectives of the aforementioned
stakeholders. Lastly, the chapter will include a presentation of the conceptual framework.
History of Technology in Schools
Perspectives of Technology Overtime
Throughout history various forms of technology have emerged, bringing initial interest
and popularity, only to wane and face replacement by the next technological innovation. Radio
broadcasting first emerged in the 1920s and 1930s, bringing technological advances in sound to
the motion picture industry. During World War II, the military utilized filmstrips both for
training videos and to prepare civilians for work in US factories. Both the motion picture
industry and the military’s use of technology drew attention to media for learning (Reiser, 2001).
The 1950s introduced educational television programming, driven primarily by the Federal
Communications Commission of Educational Channels and the Ford Foundation. However, the
use and popularity of educational programming declined as funding decreased and teacher
resistance to using television in the classroom grew. Computers first appeared for educational
use during the 1980s and by 1983 were used in 40% of elementary schools and at least 75% of
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 24
secondary schools to supplement instruction (Reiser, 2001). By the mid-1990s; however, the
impact of the computer for academic instruction was found insignificant and mostly utilized for
“drill and kill” exercises. The rest of the decade saw the advent of the Internet and a new interest
in how it might be used instructionally with students (Reiser, 2001).
Like the advances themselves, the definition of technology and its instructional meaning
has changed over time and among theorists. For decades, educational technology theorists have
debated the impact of technology on learning. In 1983, Richard Clark stated educational
technology was a vehicle of instructional content, but was not responsible for learning, nor
student achievement (Mellon, 1999). Ten years later, in 1994, Robert Kozma refuted Clark’s
stance by posing the following question: "In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to
influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations?” (Mellon, 1999, p. 29).
Overtime, the definition of technology has been nebulous at best. While Kozma defined
technology in terms of communication and electronic tools, Clark affirmed technology’s purpose
was delivery of instructional strategies to learners, but was not the reason for learning. Others
equate computers with the definition of technology. With the passage of each decade the
introduction, adaptation, and later decline of new technologies occur.
Although technology has changed over time, it continues to impact education. In the
past, the technological tool was the focus instead of how technology could be integrated with
instructional content. Product technologies are defined as hardware, software, or electronic
machines such as computers or film strips. Idea technology is described as simulations that
integrate product technologies to provide experiences for learners (Hooper & Rieber, 1995).
Historically, educational technology instruction has centered on product technologies such as
educational television or computer use. Students are provided information in this model, but are
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 25
not afforded a sense-making opportunity. Ultimately, it was realized learning must work in
conjunction with technology to organize information into meaningful experiences for transfer of
information from working memory to long term memory through well-structured problem
simulations (Hooper & Rieber, 1995). Technology embedded learning must integrate sense-
making of content and not solely an understanding of how hardware or software function.
Importance of Pedagogy
Technology has the potential to undermine learning if it is not paired with strong
instructional pedagogy. A technological tool alone may distract students from the learning
objective. For instance, a learner may lose instructional time manipulating text features or color
changes instead of utilizing the tool to strengthen one’s understanding of a specific content area
skill (Philip & Garcia, 2013). Furthermore, while technology usage may increase situational
interest among students, teachers must be aware of the cost of strategies that abbreviate content
such as encouraging texting practices to summarize main ideas from a historical text (Philip &
Garcia, 2013). The content, not interest in a technological tool, must drive learning.
McKnight, et al., 2016 conducted a mixed methods case study to analyze the importance
of pedagogy paired with technology for student learning outcomes. McKnight and his
colleagues learned technology alone does not promote results; however, student choice and
responsibility for one’s learning does improve academic outcomes. For example, teachers at five
participating sites reported routine feedback improved student learning as well as assisted in
adjusting instruction as needed. Another site in the study also supported feedback by
communicating and sharing a universal goal and learning priority: students must learn to
navigate technology. District leadership supported the vision by maintaining staff focus on
student learning and also providing teacher autonomy for technology integration (McKnight, et
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 26
al., 2016). The study found teachers view technology as enabling the instructional model when
pedagogy is introduced first instead of an intervention. Thus, pedagogy over technology must be
emphasized.
Pedagogical knowledge must also be considered in combination with technology to
ensure more effective learning environments. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge is
a framework addressing the interconnectivity of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and
technological knowledge to support learning. The TPACK framework is detailed below in
Figure 1. Content knowledge is defined as curricular information taught in each subject, while
pedagogical knowledge is described as the understanding of learning theories, instructional
strategies, classroom management, and assessment techniques. Technological knowledge is
noted as difficult to define since tools in this arena are constantly changing. However, the
technological component works in tandem with conceptual and pedagogical knowledge (Harris,
Mishra & Koehler, 2009). This framework intertwines pedagogy and technology to deliver
differentiated instruction in a flexible way. For instance, teachers may utilize the TPACK
framework to select the most appropriate instructional strategies. The type of content knowledge
is chosen first and then the type of technology to implement is decided to support learning goals
(Harris, Mishra & Koehler, 2009). Pedagogy must drive learning, while technology supports the
process. High quality instruction and intentional technology integration also has the ability to
promote increased equity within the classroom. Figure 1 summarizes the framework for
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK).
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 27
Figure 1. Components of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
Technology Implementation to Promote Equity
Technology perpetuates multiple avenues for inequity. Inequities exist in how technology
is used to educate students from underserved populations such as: minority and low-income
students. Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone (2004) examined the challenges of technology access in
a sample of California high schools as a way to address equity and student preparation for
college. Study data showed school sites with both high and low socioeconomic demographics
had similar numbers of computer availability as well as Internet connectivity, which was
congruent with national data. However, in low income schools, students were found to use
technology for lower level cognitive tasks such as looking up definitions in science or creating a
PowerPoint in English class. Teachers also used technology less often with English Language
Learners due to language barriers. On average 30% of low income schools’ populations were
comprised of English Language Learners (Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004). Conversely,
students attending high income schools performed statistical analyses in math class as well as
accessed content aligned resources or created graphic representations of their learning. There
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 28
was a clear difference in the tasks students completed using technology based on socioeconomic
status. According to Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone (2004), however, regardless of
socioeconomic status, overwhelmingly teachers focused on task completion rather than
relevancy to the achievement of learning goals. Teachers surveyed stated they felt pressured by
high stakes testing and this lessened their ability to implement innovative uses of technology.
Individual device programs supported by school leadership were found to promote
college and career ready skills as well as support technological equity. The Speak-Up Research
Project for Digital Learning ascertained parents primary concern for their children about
technology was that use varied broadly depending upon teacher, class, or subject. Individual
technology usage by students such as: one to one device programs were found to increase student
self-efficacy for learning and academic achievement (Evans, 2018). In order for students to hone
their skill set and prepare for future endeavors, teachers must appropriately utilize digital tools
and resources in the classroom. While device access has greatly increased over time,
technological teaching strategies vary by socioeconomic level.
Moreover, technology is a tool that when used judiciously can promote learning,
collaboration, and positive social interaction. Critical technological literacy is defined as the
ability to understand and manage technology in a way that it can be evaluated for use in novel
situations (Rush Hovde and Renguette, 2017). According to Rush Hovde and Renguette (2017),
there is a four level framework consisting of functional, conceptual, evaluative, and critical
components. The functional level ensures stakeholders know how to use the technology, while
the conceptual component investigates strategies to develop skills and understanding about how
technological knowledge can be transferred to different contexts. The evaluative level addresses
the selection and integration processes of technological tools to various situations. The critical
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 29
level is not only the final level, but also emphasizes ethical and responsible technology use in
order to impact political, economic, social and cultural factors to enhance social justice agendas,
while reducing opportunities for oppression (Rush Hovde and Renguette, 2017). Overall, critical
technology literacy considers how technological tools can transcend contexts to provide
opportunity and learning for all.
Methods Not Media
It is also important to consider how instructional methods, not media, drive student
learning. Instructional methods are the structure used to teach information, and content is the
information needed to teach individuals. These are the main components of learning (Clark,
Yates, Early, & Moulton, 2010). Clark et al., 2010 noted diverse instructional methods can be
integrated with almost all media types, but must utilize strategies such as situational based
problems, worked examples and scaffolding, regular feedback as well as opportunities for
authentic application of learned skills. Instructional methods must drive media selection to
support cognitive learning processes.
According to Clark (1983), mediums and modeling systems can vary, but methods
derived from instructional theories and cognitive processes are vital to ensure learning. Newer
media tout the “reviewability” feature of technology, but teachers must utilize instructional
strategies that provide for repetition. Thus, there is no added benefit that these mediums provide
beyond the teacher. Similarly, Mayer (2003) asserts instructional strategies impact deep learning
regardless of media type. The way in which individuals learn is consistent across media types
since cognitive processing is what constitutes learning, not a technology type. Thus, methods are
the catalyst for learning, while media is a mere vehicle.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 30
Instructional Strategies to Support Pedagogy in Technology
Careful instructional strategy selection is key to learning with technology. Clear and
measurable objectives written and connected to actions and standards promote learning.
Development of authentic problems that access prior knowledge and build conceptual knowledge
also support learning (Clark et al., 2010). It is essential learners have the opportunity to practice
and receive feedback when engaging in a cognitive task. Moreover, the presentation of
challenging, yet novel problems to learners helps transfer skills and concepts to long term
memory. For example, analogies connecting content to one’s prior knowledge assists individuals
in applying their learning and also ensures transfer. Opportunities for individuals to justify their
ideas and strategies coupled with feedback further supports learning (Clark et al., 2010).
Multiple instructional strategy elements must be considered for effective technology and
pedagogical integration.
Impacts and Implications of the Teacher’s Role
Impacts of First and Second Level Barriers
The teacher is vital in overcoming technological barriers to facilitate student learning
since first and second order barriers can hinder successful technology implementation in K-12
classrooms. First order barriers are external to the teacher, often described as those that hinder
resource allocation of technological devices and/or the availability of professional development
opportunities. Unaligned organizational vision or lack of leadership support are also first order
barriers (Vongkulluksn, Xie, & Bowman, 2018). Second order barriers are inherent to the
teacher and directly impact one’s knowledge and skills as they relate to technological device
operation as well as self-efficacy issues to integrate and manage technology with classroom
content (Vongkulluksn, Xie, & Bowman, 2018). According to Vongkulluksn, Xie, & Bowman
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 31
(2018), a sample of teachers described external barriers as negatively impacting technology
integration, but that can be remediated. Self-efficacy factors can both empower and hamper
meaningful technology implementation. Furthermore, teachers described as exemplary were
interviewed and shared external barriers to be more impactful than internal barriers. This is
because the aforementioned teacher group were generally able to work around external
challenges, and also valued technology integration. Internal barriers included teachers’ own
intimidation of technology and the time it takes to learn the necessary knowledge and skills. The
most influential enabling factor was teachers’ own attitudes and beliefs as well as knowledge and
skills (Ertmer et al., 2012). In sum, second order barriers are most powerful and impact
pedagogically aligned technology implementation.
Implications of Teachers’ Values and Beliefs
As previously stated, teachers’ values and beliefs are integral to technology
implementation. A four year study conducted by Kim et al. (2013) studied 42 teacher
participants’ beliefs about technology and their use of technology in low-performing, rural K-8
schools. It was concluded teachers’ learning beliefs were directly connected to their technology
integration practices and teaching styles. Moreover, collaboration and colleague observations
were shown to potentially support change in teachers’ beliefs with regard to technology
implementation. Similarly, Vongkulluksn, Xie, & Bowman (2018) found teachers' positive
values about technology integration had greater influence than beliefs about one’s ability. Thus,
when teachers believe technology integration is important they are more apt to overcome first
order barriers and overlook possible constraints in the school environment.
Teacher values also influence the level of technology utilization that occurs in the
classroom. According to Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2010), as teachers learn about technological
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 32
tools within their content areas, they are more likely to assign value and integrate the technology
into instructional content. Obtaining teacher input and engaging in conversations about
technology integration is an avenue to guide teachers’ understanding about how technology may
support their instructional purpose (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010).
A two phase case study comprised of interviews and observations followed eight teachers
considered exceptional in their utilization of educational technology to learn about how teacher
values influence classroom technology use. Results showed participants used technology as an
outreach tool for parents and with colleagues to increase communication as well as an
organizational tool for grading. Participants also valued technology to create individualized
classroom resources such as tests, quizzes, and virtual experiences for students like museum
tours. Participants further used technology to manage classroom operations. Lastly, teachers
leveraged technology to motivate students and encourage higher order thinking skills like
problem solving skills through research reports and self-assessments (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al.,
2010). Teacher values and beliefs about technology are powerful and eclipse years of
experience, planning ability, or other existing barriers.
Impacts of Teacher Voice and Successful Technology Implementation
Teacher voice, like values and beliefs, also have a strong impact on technology
implementation. Ertmer et al. (2012) found that teachers aligned instructional strategies with
their values and beliefs. For example, if a teacher valued student collaboration, s/he
implemented class projects promoting group work. Furthermore, according to Ertmer et al.
(2012), attitudes and values were rated as a positive influencing factor by teachers for technology
integration, whereas first-order, external, barriers remained a challenge for some. However,
teachers often found ways to bypass these barriers since device to student ratios are at a historical
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 33
low level. Overall, teachers have an improved understanding of students’ technological needs
and are adjusting their instructional practices accordingly. Thus, teacher belief and value systems
must align with how students are making sense of technology in school and their daily lives.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 34
The Role of Professional Development
Importance of Differentiated Teacher Support
Successful professional development must be tailored to teacher needs. Professional
development programs must also be comprised of the following elements: modeling, discussion,
and brainstorming of ideas, hands-on practice, and real time support (Mouza, 2002). It is
imperative training sessions reflect the school context and training topics are relevant to
teachers’ classrooms. Ongoing training, instead of one time professional development sessions,
allow teachers the ability to integrate long lasting change into their instructional practices
(Mouza, 2002).
Context and content specific support.
As previously mentioned, training must be ongoing and occur in the classroom where
teachers work. Authentic learning modules and individualized teacher application strategies are
key elements of professional development training (Plair, 2008). Follow-up support in the
classroom provided by technology mentors, or coaches, as well as instructional support in
developing classroom activities, content specific resources, and tools to scaffold lessons are vital
in supporting successful technology implementation by teachers (Plair, 2008). Thus, teachers
require varied and differentiated support from technology focused professional development
training.
Training Addressing First and Second Level Barriers
In addition to technology driven differentiated support, teacher autonomy can influence
self-efficacy. Intrinsic, rather than extrinsic factors, support teachers’ technology integration in
the classroom and perseverance to overcome barriers. According to a study conducted by
Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich & York (2006), confidence in and commitment to technology use
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 35
were the main factors in overcoming technology barriers for exemplary teachers. Furthermore,
desire and perseverance aided these teachers in finding ways to work around existing first order
barriers. Other notable results from the study were teacher participants with more years of
teaching experience valued professional development as important for technology integration,
while all survey participants rated professional development as a significant external, enabling
factor for successful technology implementation (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich & York, 2006).
Another study focused on how ongoing professional development training improves
teacher’s self-efficacy to address skill and barriers related to technology use. The study followed
a training program for teachers which consisted of summer professional development training,
two weeks of eight hour daily sessions, followed by five additional training days during the
school year. Participants received a stipend, were provided substitute teachers, and travel
accommodations as needed. Instructional resources were also provided to teachers by the
training program. The training model was developed to address and overcome identified
technology barriers experienced by teachers. Upon conclusion of the training, participants
completed a survey that measured teacher self-assessment, self-efficacy, as well as values and
beliefs. Results showed technology knowledge and skills as well as teacher self-efficacy
increased over time; and suggested ongoing training was instrumental in enacting change,
especially with teacher values and beliefs (Brinkerhoff, 2006). It was also noted in the study
peer collaboration and self-selected projects motivated teachers to use technology with students
(Brinkerhoff, 2006). In sum, consistent professional development training that provides teachers
instructional access and autonomy improved self-efficacy to overcome technology barriers.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 36
Implications of Professional Training
Targeted and purposeful professional development training has the potential to provide
lasting gains with regard to technology integration. A sample of 237 K-12 teachers participated
in a five month training during the 2001 and 2002 academic school years and were later surveyed
about their integration of technology-infused lessons or activities during the following school
year. Survey results showed longer, more intense professional development sessions were
effective in promoting change in teacher practice as it relates to technology use (Kanaya, Light,
Mcmillan, Routledge, 2005). The study also deduced professional development offerings must
align with student needs for teachers to maximize learning from training sessions. Additionally,
teachers' personal perception of technology preparedness was essential in predicting the level of
technology integration into one’s content area curriculum (Kanaya, Light, Mcmillan, Routledge,
2005). Successful implementation of technology into the classroom requires teachers to
recognize technology must support instructional methods appropriate for the content being
taught. In sum, professional development plays a significant role in overcoming teacher barriers
to successfully using technology by providing knowledge and skills, building confidence, and
value.
Conceptual Framework
The GAP Analysis approach, established by Clark and Estes (2008), identifies and
resolves performance gaps in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes. In
educational settings, the knowledge gap focuses on teachers having the understanding and skills
to develop and deliver lesson plans according to content standards and program curricula. The
motivation gap examines value factors related to teachers’ self-efficacy and attitude to ensure
consistent alignment and execution of the curriculum. Organizational causes address resources,
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 37
policies and procedures as well as cultural models that can hinder performance goals. The data
collected from the GAP Analysis Process allows informed decision-making required to close the
performance gap.
In this study, the Clark and Estes (2008) framework will be adapted to highlight XYZ
School District’s promising practice of high technology implementation, which has led to high
academic achievement. In the application as a promising practice, the GAP Analysis Process
highlights the assets that exist and may influence the high achievement of the organization’s goal
as well as offers improvements to performance.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Declarative factual knowledge influences. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) define
factual knowledge as the basic understanding a stakeholder must recognize and recall in order to
solve problems. It is knowledge comprised of discrete details, terminology and content specific
vocabulary. Terminology and details are elements of this type of knowledge. Declarative
factual knowledge influences have been grouped together and are listed below.
Teachers know where to find district professional development opportunities. Teachers
know who to contact from the district technology team regarding differentiated support or
implementation of a new technological practice within their classrooms. Teachers know the
technological tools, both hardware and software that are appropriate for instructional use in
their classrooms. Teachers know their content standards that are best taught with technology.
Teachers require differentiated professional development training to create learner
centered environments that merge pedagogy and technology. Study results from Yun-Jo &
Reigeluth (2011) indicate professional development training must include both hands-on content
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 38
specific practice and real time demonstrations within one’s classroom. The Eiffel Tower Project,
a train the trainer model for technology implementation, also determined hands on experiences
and real time support to be impactful for teachers to experiment with software and curriculum
(Mouza, 2002). The project also noted discussion and reflection about lesson plan ideas as well
as continual exploration of new strategies allowed teachers to attribute meaning to their teaching
experiences with technology (Mouza, 2002). Thus, professional development must be ongoing
and well-planned to support teacher needs, while also considering school context. In addition to
professional development training, technological tools must be carefully paired with content
objectives and instructional activities to achieve optimal student learning. The Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework aligns technology and content area goals
through integration of instructional activities and technology use (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler
2009). In sum, professional development training must be differentiated to address teachers’
individualized needs in order to deliver long term results.
Conceptual knowledge influences. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) suggest that
conceptual knowledge is characterized by connections between basic information as well as
classifications, categorization of knowledge. Theories, models, and structures also comprise
conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge influences have been grouped together and are
listed below.
Teachers compare various technological tools to determine which is most appropriate
in achieving their instructional goal(s). Teachers are able to generalize models and structures
learned from professional development. Teachers understand how different technological
tools support different content delivery. Teachers differentiate between technology
applications/structures in order to achieve a specific instructional goal.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 39
Professional development training must show teachers how and when to integrate
technology tools into a lesson to achieve the instructional goal. Regular assistance in the
development of technology infused lessons, which include scaffolding, context specific
resources, and the development of concrete activities, is one way to strengthen this
understanding (Plair, 2008). However, determining the most appropriate technology tool to
support student learning can be difficult for teachers. Thus, Plair (2008) asserts Knowledge
Brokers, or individuals who support teachers in understanding the various ways in which
technology can be used to support content area knowledge in lessons, must provide increased
support to teachers. School administration, district personnel, or technology team members are
potential Knowledge Brokers to provide additional school site support and training where
teachers can learn how to compare technology to content and grade level specific goals.
Teachers must also understand their content area well in order to decipher how
technology is appropriately utilized to enhance student learning. The TPACK, or Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework, promotes the creation of authentic learning
environments by purposefully pairing technology with instructional content goals. TPACK
driven professional development uses instructional content to drive a lesson’s trajectory.
Teachers identify, differentiate, discuss, and apply TPACK activity types to their content area.
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009). Thus, content standards and
learning objectives drive a lesson’s technology tools.
Procedural knowledge influences. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) describe procedural
knowledge as a process in which something is accomplished. Methods, procedures and criteria
for assessing skills are part of this knowledge type. Procedural knowledge influences have been
grouped together and are listed below.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 40
Teachers know when to apply skills learned from professional development sessions.
Teachers know how to apply skills learned from professional development. Teachers know
how to integrate instructional and technological skills and knowledge.
Regular, relevant professional development must reflect teachers’ work in the classroom
as well as opportunities to apply one’s learning in order to obtain lasting results. Effective
professional development training sessions focus on teaching teachers how students learn, time
for teacher exploration, and the opportunity to refine instructional practices (Tomoe, Kanaya,
Light, & McMillan Culp, 2005). Additionally, Tomoe et al. (2005) found longer training
sessions yielded a higher probability teachers would implement tools, materials, and practices
provided via professional development. Dedicated time for teachers to develop classroom
materials also resulted in higher technology implementation when they returned to their
classrooms. Moreover, teacher participation in professional networks has the potential to
promote peer collaboration for technological tools which support instructional strategies (Ertmer
et al. (2012). Teachers also require sufficient avenues to practice knowledge and skill
application within the classroom. Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2012) identified emphasis on
student learning, teacher-ownership, focus on content knowledge development, and regular
reflection on one’s teaching practices as reasons for increased technology integration among
teachers. Design-based professional development training that supported co-planning lessons
with an experienced instructional coach also proved advantageous for teachers to expand and
apply their technology implementation knowledge (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012).
Therefore, professional development training must include time and space for application of
learning in conjunction with support from experienced educators.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 41
Metacognitive knowledge influences. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) state metacognitive
knowledge as a mindfulness about one’s learning and thinking. Strategic thinking, conditional
knowledge as well as self-reflection are components of metacognitive knowledge.
Metacognitive knowledge influences have been grouped together and are listed below.
Teachers reflect on personal gaps in knowledge and skills, knowing when to seek out
professional development support. Teachers debrief with the technology team and peers
regarding best practices. Teachers self-assess their classroom instruction and adjust
instructional strategies as needed.
Metacognition is a key aspect of technology implementation and consists of reflection
risk-taking, and self-regulated learning. The Think Together Project assumed a metacognitive
approach implemented in various schools to determine which reflective skills positively impact
school culture. The Technology Together program approach recognized each teacher’s
individual technological goals and progress; thus encouraging autonomy and relevancy. Goal
setting coupled with ongoing peer-mentor discussions resulted in increased engagement of
teacher metacognition throughout the project (Phelps & Graham, 2008). In some participating
schools, mentoring was incorporated into the formal school structure with regular meeting times.
Other schools formed novice-expert partnerships. Teachers received scaffolded support and
resources as they identified what they did not know and what strategies they wanted to
experiment with in the classroom (Phelps & Graham, 2008). The programs also provided risk-
taking opportunities for teachers and ongoing support for technological challenges teachers
decided to undertake. Celebration of successes was also part of the program. In sum,
metacognition must encompass time and space to reflect on personal knowledge gaps, seek out
support, and engage in risk-taking for individual growth.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 42
Table 3 outlines knowledge influences and the related literature.
Table 3.
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Critical Behaviors for Teachers 1 Actively participate in professional
development training and seek out
differentiated support from the
technology team as needed.
2. Demonstrate knowledge of learned
skills through utilization of appropriate
technology that supports the
instructional strategies in the classroom.
Assumed Knowledge Influences Research Literature
Author, Year; Author, Year.
Declarative Factual (terms, facts,
concepts)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers know where to find district
professional development opportunities.
Teachers know who to contact from the
district technology team regarding
differentiated support or implementation
of a new technological practice within
their classrooms.
(An & Reigeluth, 2011)
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers know the technological tools,
both hardware and software that are
appropriate for instructional use in their
classrooms.
Teachers know their content standards
that are best taught with technology.
(Mouza, 2002); (Harris, Mishra, &
Koehler, 2009)
Declarative Conceptual (categories,
process models, principles, relationships)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers compare various technological
tools to determine which is most
(Plair, 2008)
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 43
appropriate in achieving their
instructional goal(s).
Teachers are able to generalize models
and structures learned from professional
development.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers understand how different
technological tools support different
content delivery.
Teachers differentiate between
technology applications/structures in
order to achieve a specific instructional
goal.
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006); (Harris,
Mishra, & Koehler, 2009)
Procedural
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers know when to apply skills
learned from professional development
sessions.
Teachers know how to apply skills
learned from professional development.
(Kanaya, Light, Mcmillan, Routledge,
2005)
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers know how to integrate
instructional and technological skills and
knowledge.
(Ertmer,. et al., 2012); (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012)
Metacognitive
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers reflect on personal gaps in
knowledge and skills, knowing when to
seek out professional development
support.
Teachers debrief with technology team
and peers regarding best practices.
(Phelps & Graham, 2008)
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 44
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers self-assess their classroom
instruction and adjust instructional
strategies as needed.
(Phelps & Graham, 2008)
Motivation
Value, self-efficacy, mood, attribution, and goal orientation are motivational variables.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is described as a psychological system
comprised of three indices: choice, persistence, and mental effort. High self-efficacy and value
along with a positive mood promotes successful technology integration within instructional
curriculum. Clark and Estes (2008) describes mental effort as the ability to expend effort and
persist in order to achieve a goal. In order to attain the goal of technology use within the
classroom, teachers must demonstrate a willingness to take risks to expand their learning. Mayer
(2011) states individuals work more diligently to learn and master the material if they attribute
their effort to success. When teachers can attribute success to their own hard work with
technology knowledge attainment as well as lesson implementation, they are more apt to have a
positive perception of technology use and how it can support academic achievement among their
students.
Value. It is imperative professional development topics are those teachers value and can
successfully implement with students. Personal experiences, collegial connections, and
instructional strategies most align with teachers’ values and beliefs and are also likely to transfer
from the training session to the classroom. Assignments focused on problem-solving, data
analysis, or self-assessment are of high value among teachers because they not only promote
higher order thinking skills among students, but also offer authentic, real world application of
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 45
necessary life skills (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). According to Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al.
(2010), teachers interviewed also mentioned student motivation as a valuable professional
development topic because they perceived increased student motivation to result in positive
outcomes including higher quality work and self-regulation.
Similarly, content-specific professional development training is valued by teachers
because it integrates technology with their content area. A small case study conducted by
Hughes (2005) reported incorporation of modeling and examples into training sessions supported
teachers in using technology to deliver content. The study also found when professional
development training connects teachers’ content area with technology and values, the possibility
technology integration will occur in the classroom improves. Moreover, offering the idea for an
instructional activity with a technology resource allows for scaffolding and the opportunity for
teachers’ to plan how the activity will be used in their respective classrooms (Hughes, 2005).
Therefore, professional development training topics must exemplify teachers’ values and beliefs
about technology implementation for training to transfer to the classroom.
Self-efficacy. Positive experiences related to technology integration support teachers’
self-efficacy to continue experimenting with technology implementation in their classrooms.
Modeling, collegial conversations, and professional development that builds upon teachers’
current work and immediate needs are ways in which to build self-efficacy. Additionally, when
teachers observe instances of how technology supports student achievement, their confidence for
technology use increases (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). A study by Liu, Ko, Willmann,
& Fickert (2018) followed a yearlong training session that focused on a one to one Apple iPad
initiative and found self-efficacy influenced teachers’ transfer of learning from training to their
instructional practices within the classroom. Teachers in the study stated relevant and applicable
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 46
technology ideas as well as resources presented during training sessions provided instructional
support and the opportunity for immediate classroom implementation. Additionally, the study
concluded when teachers perceived professional development training to enhance their ability to
use iPads in conjunction with instruction, they held a more favorable view of the session offered.
Other notable outcomes from the research were instructional methods must accompany
technology trainings to demonstrate how technology integration can address curricular goals as
well as training must be ongoing and long-term to demonstrate measurable change (Liu, Ko,
Willmann, & Fickert, 2018). In sum, relevant instructional methods, resources, and ongoing
training support assists teachers in meeting curricular goals with technology implementation.
Mood. Two studies demonstrate how teacher mood impacts technology implementation.
Teachers from various Southwestern schools were participants in a mixed method study to learn
about their experiences and attitudes regarding classroom Chromebook integration and personal
technology use. Overall, comfort with technology as an instructional tool was correlated with
familiarity and the number of personal devices teachers used (Sahin, Top, & Delen, 2016).
According to Sahin, Top, & Delen (2016), some teachers formed negative attitudes about
Chromebook use after one year. This was due primarily to restrictions and lack of organizational
support. Inadequate training and cumbersome policies were also noted as perpetuating feelings
of disappointment among participants. Some teachers also stated they felt the devices were not
being used to their potential and instead posed a distraction to students (Sahin, Top, & Delen,
2016). Thus, organizational hindrances affected teacher mood and ultimately classroom
technology implementation.
Teacher feelings about technology also reflect ease of use within the classroom. After
disseminating technology questionnaires to teachers, Chiu & Churchill (2016) learned
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 47
participants who self-reported a strong understanding of how technology devices worked also
held a positive attitude about technology integration. The study also concluded practicality, ease
of use, and differentiated support by content area and level (i.e., elementary vs. secondary) may
increase teacher optimism about technology implementation. Thus, professional development
training must emphasize practicality and user comfort to ensure positive feelings about
technology use among teachers in the classroom.
Attribution. The impact of teachers’ feelings about personal success and failure of
technology integration due to their own efforts is also an important factor affecting technology
implementation. The Technology Acceptance Model, or TAM, measures perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use with regard to technology, while the Technology Readiness Index
(TRI) examines four factors: optimism, innovativeness, discomfort, and insecurity. (Godoe &
Johansen, 2012). One hundred eighty six Norwegian employees were part of this study. Data
showed the level of overall usefulness of a technological tool or application impacts
implementation. Participants optimistic about a particular technology were more apt to find
ways in which to implement it because they perceived the application to be useful (Godoe &
Johansen, 2012). Overall, the study concluded innovation and perceived ease of use shared a
positive relationship, while usefulness and perceived usefulness predicted a negative connection.
Stakeholders’ attitudes about how they will use technology must be considered when a new
technology initiative is introduced and proactive steps must be taken to ensure successful
implementation. Thus, users will dismiss a technology when they perceive usefulness and ease of
use to be too low, even if they demonstrate the necessary skills for implementation (Godoe &
Johansen, 2012). In sum, one’s perception of a technology application affects the success rate of
implementation.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 48
Goal Orientation. Teachers must be provided time and space to experiment with
technology, make mistakes, and reflect on the process. It is necessary teachers feel comfortable
making mistakes with technology integration without worrying about repercussions of any kind
from various stakeholders including administrators, colleagues or students. A culture of risk-
taking must exist within the organization (Bitner & Bitner, 2002). To initiate change, it is
important for site administration to encourage teacher reflection and hear teacher voice with
regards to technology needs. Bitner and Bitner (2002), assert this is the way to increase teacher
motivation for and transition to technology integration. Thus, risk-taking by the teacher is an
important step in the technology integration process.
Table 4 outlines motivation influences and the related literature.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 49
Table 4.
Summary of Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Critical Behaviors for Teachers 1 Actively participate in professional
development training and seek out
differentiated support from the technology
team as needed.
2. Demonstrate knowledge of learned skills
through utilization of appropriate
technology that supports the instructional
strategies in the classroom
Assumed Motivation Influences Research Literature
Author, Year; Author, Year.
Value
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers value professional training
opportunities to hone instructional
strategies in conjunction with technology
within their classrooms.
(Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby,
Ertmer, 2010)
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers value technology integration to
support student acquisition of content
knowledge.
(Hughes, 2005)
Self-Efficacy
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers are confident they can transfer
their learning from professional
development into the classroom.
(Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010); (Liu
et al., 2018)
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers are confident they can implement
technology into content lessons.
(Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010); (Liu
et al., 2018)
Mood
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers feel positive about professional
development.
(Sahin et al., 2016); (Chiu and Churchill,
2016)
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 50
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers feel positive about using
technology in their classrooms.
(Sahin et al., 2016); (Chiu and Churchill,
2016)
Attribution
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers attribute their success and failures
in integrating technology in their content
lessons to their own efforts.
(Godoe and Johansen, 2012)
Goal Orientation
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers are willing to take risks and learn
from their mistakes.
(Bitner and Bitner, 2002)
Organization
Resources, policies, procedures and processes as well as cultural factors encompass
organization. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) describe how culture plays a role in educational
research and can lead to improved academic achievement. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
state cultural implementation can be powerful if viewed through the lens of cultural models and
cultural settings. Cultural models are defined as shared mental schema that are often invisible to
stakeholders. They define the way things should be and are often automated and go unnoticed,
creating a shared understanding. Cultural settings represent environments where individuals
come together to accomplish an activity all stakeholders value. Examples of cultural settings
include classroom activities, family homework routines, or discussing a curriculum change at a
faculty meeting (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001).
Cultural models and cultural settings both develop from shared experiences and
collective information. Technological support that originates at the leadership level as well as
the structure and duration of professional development play a significant role in shaping the
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 51
cultural setting. Similarly, norms and teacher beliefs at a school site often dictate how
colleagues will perceive each other’s implementation approach. Ongoing support in the
classroom as well as consistent communication are significant aspects for teachers when
expanding their technology knowledge and skills. Both cultural models and settings are integral
elements to successful technology implementation in the classroom among teachers.
Resources. A teacher’s decision to use technology is dependent upon knowledge and
skills, belief systems, and ongoing support. Teacher mentors provide technology support within
the classroom as well as a clear vision for technology implementation (Kopcha, 2012). A study
conducted by Kopcha (2012) found nearly half of participating teachers self-reported a sustained
or increased positive perception about technology use after consultation with a mentor.
Similarly, a mixed methods study examined the role of Technology Facilitators, as they were
referenced in the study, who provided consistent support to teachers as part of a technology
device initiative. Daily technical and instructional support as well as facilitation of professional
development training focused on instructionally driven technology implementation summarized
their role responsibilities. The study concluded teachers who received this level of support and
guidance were more likely to develop technologically driven lessons specific to their content
area (Stanhope & Corn, 2014). Thus, technology mentorship is a key organizational resource to
drive technology implementation.
Policies, processes, and procedures. While technology implementation policies and
procedures vary by organization, best practices exist. Time to explore and apply technology to
one’s content area curriculum as well as collaboration opportunities with peers were valuable
teacher practices. Besides focus on a single organizational initiative, policies and procedures
must address hardware and software protocol, a professional development plan, employee
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 52
recruitment, and guidelines related to student internet and device usage (Zhao & Frank, 2003;
Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). In sum, various elements must be considered and
comprised to craft effective technology policies and procedures.
Culture. Cultural factors impact technology implementation within an organization. It
is important teachers know how and where to seek support within the organization. Regular
teacher interaction with technology staff provides the necessary support for instructional
technology integration (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). The human technological
infrastructure, which includes colleagues, must also be flexible for teachers’ classroom needs.
Zhao et al. (2002) found most teachers required a strong human infrastructure with responsive
communication to use technology within their classrooms. In one instance, poor technology
support led to distrust of site administration. Thus, collegial collaboration is an important
cultural factor.
Also essential is the alignment of teachers’ values and beliefs to the organization’s
culture belief system for technology integration to be successful. Teachers within a school site
hold norms about accepted behaviors, instructional practices, and values and beliefs. Teachers
may be hesitant to accept technology practices which do not align with these cultural belief
systems. Moreover, teachers who do not value technology integration can negatively impact
other, less experienced teachers. Conversely, teachers may motivate peers to experiment with
new technologies if there is alignment among belief systems (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010). Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2002) proposed the notion if a teacher’s belief system is in
conflict with the school culture, ultimately technology implementation will suffer. For instance,
teacher projects that deviated from the school culture were found to have a negative result on
overall technology implementation. However, time and willingness to take risks support
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 53
technological learning among teachers. A time commitment by teachers to learn the necessary
technology as well as an openness to take risks are key components to learning and ultimately
contribute to a positive organizational culture. Additionally, teachers must be willing to make
mistakes as this is part of the learning process, which also supports growth and positive change
(Vannatta & Fordham, 2004). Thus, cultural influences are powerful as they can both help or
hinder technology use.
Table 5 details organizational influences and the related literature.
Table 5.
Summary of Assumed Organization Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve the
Performance Goal
Assumed Organizational Influences Research Literature
Author, Year; Author, Year.
Resources (time; finances; people)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers have regular access to educational
technology team members with whom they may
consult regarding implementation issues or
innovative strategies they aim to experiment with
in their classrooms.
(Kopcha, 2012)
Critical Behavior 2
There is one to one access for all students so that
teachers have sufficient devices to facilitate lessons
using technology.
(Stanhope & Corn, 2014)
Policies, Processes, & Procedures
Critical Behavior 1
Policies outlined in the district’s technology
implementation plan align with year round,
differentiated professional development resources
for teachers.
(Zhao & Frank, 2003), (Zhao et al.,
2002)
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 54
Critical Behavior 2
District procedures align with targeted use of
devices for instructional purposes and common
assessments.
(Zhao & Frank, 2003), (Zhao et al.,
2002)
Culture
Critical Behavior 1
Overall, teachers perceive there is a culture of
continuous learning through professional
development to deliver consistent technology
infused lessons.
(Zhao et al., 2002); (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010).
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers feel supported and safe in taking
technological risks within their classrooms.
(Vannatta & Fordham, 2004)
Teacher self-efficacy coupled with targeted, ongoing professional development are vital
in implementing technology within the classroom. Similarly, cultural factors such as belief
systems and collaboration among teachers is important in sustaining the overarching goal of
integrating technology with instruction. The influences identified in Chapter Two will be used as
a foundation for data collection in Chapter Three.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 55
Chapter Three: Methodology
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to study the XYZ School District’s organizational
performance as it relates to district-wide technology integration and overall high student
achievement. The analysis focused on stakeholders, assets in the areas of knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational resources. While a complete study would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders to be focused on in this analysis are district
technology team members and district K-12 teachers.
The questions that guided this GAP Analysis Process address the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that support
high student achievement as it relates to high technology integration?
2. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets does the district technology team
possess that has contributed to the organization continually expanding district technology
opportunities, while also sustaining high student achievement?
3. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another school district?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The GAP Analysis approach, established by Clark and Estes (2008), identifies and
resolves performance gaps in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational causes.
This is accomplished by determining organizational goals and the distance between current
performance and desired results. Goals must be specific, challenging, and current (Clark &
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 56
Estes, 2008). This ensures objectives are clear, measurable, and attainable while also maintaining
a level of difficulty to improve organizational performance.
The GAP Analysis Process is detailed below in Figure 2. First, measurable and attainable
performance goals are determined. Next, current achievement is assessed at different
organizational levels. The gap between goals and present performance is then established and
root causes are identified and classified as either knowledge, motivational or organizational.
For this study, the subsequent steps of Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework were adapted
to highlight XYZ School District’s promising practice of high technology implementation, which
has led to high academic achievement. An implementation plan detailing the promising practice
will be discussed as well as recommendations for continual structural evaluation and
modification of knowledge, motivation and organizational factors.
Figure 2 demonstrates the steps of the GAP Analysis Process.
Figure 2. Sequence of steps in the GAP Analysis Process
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 57
Assessment of Performance Influences
To understand the basis of XYZ School District’s success of technology implementation
and ensuing high academic achievement, the Clark and Estes (2008) GAP Analysis Process was
used. A focus on this promising practice provides data as to which knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences benefit stakeholders in achieving their goals as well as highlights
possible necessary improvements for performance. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences were created based on the following teacher critical behaviors: active participation in
professional development training and differentiated support from the technology team as needed
as well as demonstration of knowledge of learned skills through utilization of appropriate
technology that supports the instructional strategies in the classroom. The tables that follow
detail items for surveys and interviews that align to critical behavior influences outlined in
Chapter Two.
Knowledge Assessment
According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge influences seek to answer how, when,
why, where, and who questions related to individuals’ ability to achieve a goal. Knowledge
focuses on communication, procedure, and experience issues. Support is scaffolded depending
on the level of involvement needed. Communication of information to stakeholders in order to
achieve a specific goal is the most basic type of support, while job aides provide increased levels
of direction, and training sessions offer specific “how to” knowledge and feedback. Ongoing
education also provides conceptual and strategic knowledge stakeholders may apply to
unexpected situations or novel circumstances (Clark and Estes, 2008).
Knowledge influences in Table 6 were based on Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001)
Taxonomy Table, comprised of the following knowledge types: factual, conceptual, procedural,
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 58
and metacognitive. Factual knowledge focuses on discrete information such as: content specific
terminology and details. Conceptual knowledge addresses categories, structures, and models as
well as theories. Procedural knowledge simply stated is the steps to carry out a task. Methods
and skill criteria comprise this subtype of knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge concentrates on
overall cognition and one’s awareness of learning (Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001). Table 6
details Chapter Two’s knowledge influences and the method of assessment for each.
Table 6.
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Influences on Teachers’ Ability to Achieve the Performance
Goal
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
“Survey Items”
(Teachers)
“Interview Items”
(Teachers)
“Interview Items”
(Technology Team)
Declarative Factual
(terms, facts,
concepts)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers know where
to find district
professional
development
opportunities.
I learn about
professional
development
opportunities (check
all that apply)
a. through district
emails
b. at staff
meetings
c. through
discussion
with my site’s
education
technologist
d. from the
district office
e. from my peers
Tell me about how
you find out about
professional
development
trainings?
How does the
technology team
communicate
professional
development
trainings to
teachers?
Teachers know who
to contact from the
district technology
team regarding
differentiated support
or implementation of
a new technological
practice within their
classrooms.
I take the following
action when I require
support or help with
technology
implementation in my
classroom (check all
that apply)
a. Contact the
educational
Who do you contact
when you have
questions about
technology in your
classroom or need
support?
Tell me about the
types of technology
support teachers
request from your
team?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 59
technologists
assigned to my
site
b. Submit a
technology
ticket through
the district
website
c. Contact the
Chief
Technology
Officer
d. Contact the
Educational
Services
department.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers know the
technological tools,
both hardware and
software that are
appropriate for
instructional use in
their classrooms.
From the list
provided, identify the
technological tools
you regularly use
during instruction in
your classroom.
Check all that apply
a. Google
applications
b. Textbook
resources
c. Illuminate
d. Classlink
applications
e. Aeries
What technology
tools are available to
you for use in your
classroom?
What technology is
available to teachers
for use in their
classrooms?
Teachers know their
content standards that
are best taught with
technology.
I know the type of
technology that best
supports different
content standards.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
Give me some
examples of a good
match between
technology and
content standards.
What instruction do
you provide to
teachers to help
them match
technology with
content standards?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 60
Conceptual
(categories, process
models, principles,
relationships)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers compare
various technological
tools to determine
which is most
appropriate in
achieving their
instructional goals.
My lesson objective
determines how the
type of technology I
might integrate into
my instruction.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
Give me an example
of a lesson and
technology pairing
you have used.
Follow-up Question:
Why or why not was
it effective?
What part of your
training helps
teachers compare
technology to decide
the best match for
their lessons?
.
Teachers are able to
generalize models and
structures learned
from professional
development.
I can adapt the
models, strategies
and/or ideas from
professional
development sessions
into my content
instruction.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
Identify a few good
technology focused
lesson strategies you
have learned from
trainings.
What are some
models you provide
in trainings that
teachers’ can
transfer to their
classrooms?
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers understand
how different
technological tools
support different
content delivery.
I change how I use
technology based on
the content I am
teaching.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
Give an example of
lesson topic and
type of technology
you have used
together.
In what ways do you
show teachers how
to change
technology based on
their lesson
objective?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 61
d. Definitely
agree
Teachers differentiate
between technology
applications/structures
in order to achieve a
specific instructional
goal.
I change how I use
technology based on
my instructional
objective.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
Share two different
ways you have used
technology in your
teaching and
summarize why you
decided to use each
tool in the way that
you did.
In what ways do you
guide teachers in
determining which
technology to use
with different lesson
types?
Procedural
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers know when
to apply skills learned
from professional
development sessions.
What do you look for
in a lesson that would
prompt you to use
technology? Mark all
that apply.
a. Student
collaboration
b. Class
discussion
c. Research
d. Writing
e. Projects
How do you decide
when to apply
learning from
training in your
classroom?
In what ways do you
instruct teachers
about when to insert
technology into their
lessons to achieve
the lesson objective?
Teachers know how
to apply skills learned
from professional
development.
Drag and drop the
steps to show the steps
in opening a Google
Document and share
with others.
a. Access
classroom.goo
gle.com.
b. Sign in to your
Google
account.
c. Click the plus
sign at the top
of the
Welcome
Describe how you
implemented your
learning from a
training into your
teaching.
What steps do you
take so teachers
know how to apply
professional training
strategies to their
teaching?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 62
screen and
choose Create
Class.
d. Type Class
name and
section in the
Create a Class
dialogue box.
e. Click Create.
f. Select the class
to share.
g. Click Choose
action and
select one of
the following
options: create
an assignment,
ask a question
or make an
announcement
h. Click Go.
I know how to apply
the skills I learned
from professional
development sessions
to my instruction.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers know how
to integrate
instructional and
technological skills
and knowledge.
I know how to
integrate technology
into my instruction.
a. Definitely
Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
Agree
After attending a
training, how do you
implement a learned
strategy into your
lessons?
How do you help
teachers use a
training strategy
within their
classroom?
Metacognitive
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers reflect on
personal gaps in
knowledge and skills,
knowing when to seek
I regularly reflect on
my technological
knowledge and skills
and seek out support
as needed.
After attending
multiple trainings
and several
attempts, you are
having difficulty
making technology
A teacher
approaches you after
attending a recent
training session and
states she is
experiencing
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 63
out professional
development support.
a. Definitely
Disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
Agree
function properly in
your classroom.
What’s the next
thing you do?
difficulty
implementing
technology into her
content area. She is
frustrated and
believes the training
to be a waste of
time. How would
you respond?
I talk through my
lessons using
technology with peers
or a technology team
member.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
It is the end of the
school year and you
are debriefing with
two teachers: one
who has utilized
best practices and
another who is
struggling to
understand the
benefits of
technology
integration. How
would you address
each teacher’s
individual situation?
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers self-assess
their classroom
instruction and adjust
instructional strategies
as needed.
I regularly self-assess
how I use technology
in my classroom and
adjust instructional
strategies when
necessary.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
After attending a
training you want to
use more technology
in your classroom.
What do you do
next?
A teacher wants to
adjust her
instructional
strategies to increase
technology usage in
her classroom. How
would you engage in
a discussion with the
teacher who is
undergoing self-
assessment of her
classroom
instruction?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 64
Motivation Assessment
Table 7 Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment describes value,
self-efficacy, mood, attribution and goal orientation as the motivational factors that impact
district-wide technology implementation. Chapter Two described motivational influences and
will be confirmed through surveys, interviews and observations.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is described as a psychological process
comprised of three indices: choice, persistence, and mental effort. Choice is defined as actively
pursuing a goal, while persistence is described as continual focus on a task. When individuals
become distracted and lose focus, they are identified as having a persistence problem. Similarly,
mental effort is the ability to expend effort and persist in order to achieve a goal. Confidence is a
key contributing factor as lack of confidence as well as overconfidence results in persistence and
choice challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008). According to Wigfield and Eccles (2000), the value an
individual places on a task influences performance, effort, and persistence. Similarly, self-
efficacy is defined as the assessment of one’s performance ability in order to achieve a goal. A
strong sense of self-efficacy will result in higher competence and a potential positive outcome.
Individuals who value the task will work more diligently to learn and master the material,
especially if they attribute the effort to their own success (Bandura, 2006; Mayer, 2011). Table 7
details Chapter Two’s motivation influences and their method of assessment.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 65
Table 7.
Summary of Motivation Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed
Motivation
Influences
Survey Items
(Teachers)
Interview Items
(Teachers)
Interview Items
(Technology
members)
Value
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers value
professional training
opportunities to hone
instructional strategies
in conjunction with
technology within their
classrooms.
Compared to other
district professional
development
training, how much
do you value
technology training?
a. Do not value
at all
b. Slightly
value
c. Moderately
value
d. Strongly
value
How valuable is it for
you to attend a
technology training?
How do you
increase a sense
of value among
teachers for
technology
trainings?
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers value
technology integration
to support student
acquisition of content
knowledge.
It is important for
me to use
technology in my
classroom because it
supports my
students’ content
knowledge.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
Please describe some
reasons for using
technology in your
lessons?
How do you
decide which
activities are part
of training to
support student
learning?
Self-Efficacy
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers are confident
they can transfer their
learning from
professional
Select a number
from 0 to 100 using
the scale below in
response to the
following statement:
I am confident I can
use what I learn in
professional
How confident are you
about using strategies
learned from training
with your students?
How confident
are you training
teachers’
technology use in
the classroom?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 66
development into the
classroom.
development
training right now.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers are confident
they can implement
technology into content
lessons.
I am confident I can
incorporate
technology into my
lessons right now.
Bandura’s
Confidence scale 1-
100
To what degree do you
feel confident about
using technology to
teach your lessons?
How confident do
you feel your
team is helping
teachers to
implement
technology into
their lessons?
Mood
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers feel positive
about professional
development.
I feel positive about
technology focused
professional
development
trainings.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
How do you feel about
district technology
trainings?
How do you
communicate
positive feelings
about technology
usage during
training sessions?
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers feel positive
about using technology
in their classrooms.
I feel positive about
using technology in
my classroom with
students.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
How do you feel about
using technology with
your lessons?
Describe how you
promote positive
technology
experiences for
teachers?
Attribution
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers attribute their
success and failures in
integrating technology
in their content lessons
to their own efforts.
My success in
integrating
technology in my
lessons is due to my
own efforts.
a. Definitely
disagree
What are the reasons
technology succeeds or
fails in your
classroom?
In what ways do
you believe some
teachers’
technology efforts
succeed, while
others fail?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 67
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
Goal Orientation
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers are willing to
take risks and learn
from their mistakes.
I am willing to take
risks by
experimenting with
technology in my
classroom even if I
make mistakes.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
Describe a way or two
you have taken risks
with technology in
your classroom?
How do you
encourage
technology risk
taking among
teachers?
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
Organizational influences are categorized as resources, policies, processes, and
procedures as well as cultural factors. Clark and Estes (2008) state barriers or misalignment in
the aforementioned factors results in a delay of work and lack of goal performance.
Organizational influences outlined in Chapter Two will be assessed through surveys, interviews
and document analysis.
Organizational culture is complex and according to Scott, Mannion, Davies, and
Marshall (2003), change encompasses a thorough understanding of both conscious and
unconscious behavioral factors. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) explain cultural models and
cultural settings as integral components of an organization’s structure. Cultural models are
defined as shared mental schema that are often invisible to stakeholders. They define the way
things should be and are often automated and go unnoticed, creating a shared understanding.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 68
Cultural settings represent environments where individuals come together to accomplish an
activity all stakeholders value. Examples of cultural settings include activities, routines, or
meeting discussions. Cultural models and cultural settings both develop from shared experiences
and collective information. Additionally, both are restricted to the environment in which they
are located. Cultural settings develop gradually and individuals can share the same models, but
have different responses. While cultural settings are more easily visible, flexibility in settings
allow for interventions and changes to occur. Table 8 details Chapter Two’s organization
influences and their method of assessment.
Table 8.
Summary of Organizational Influences and Method of Assessment
Assumed Organizational
Influences
“Survey Items”
(teachers)
“Interview Items”
(teachers)
“Interview Items”
(technology team)
Resources (time;
finances; people)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers have regular
access to educational
technology team members
with whom they may
consult regarding
implementation issues or
innovative strategies they
aim to experiment with in
their classrooms.
How often do you
interact with
educational
technology team
members in a given
month?
a. Not at all
b. 1 - 3 times
c. 4 - 6 times
d. More than six
times
What types of
discussions have
you had with
technology team
members?
How often would
you say you meet
with teachers to
discuss technology?
Follow-up question:
Give me an example
of a recent
discussion.
Critical Behavior 2
There is one to one access
for all students so that
teachers have sufficient
devices to facilitate
lessons using technology.
There are sufficient
devices available to
students to facilitate
technology based
lessons.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
Describe
technology access
at your site.
Describe how device
access affects
teachers’ frequency
of technology use?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 69
d. Definitely
agree
Policies, Processes, &
Procedures
Critical Behavior 1
Policies outlined in the
district’s technology
implementation plan align
with year round,
differentiated professional
development resources for
teachers.
District technology
policies are well
aligned with
differentiated
professional
development
resources for teachers.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
How do you feel
district technology
policies align with
differentiated
support and
training?
How do district
policies impact
training offerings
and differentiated
support for teachers?
Critical Behavior 2
District procedures align
with targeted use of
devices for instructional
purposes and common
assessments.
District procedures
are well aligned with
device usage for
instruction and
common assessments?
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Definitely
agree
How do district
procedures affect
your device usage
for common
assessments and
instructionally?
How does your
instruction align with
device usage for
instruction and
common
assessments?
Culture
Critical Behavior 1
Overall, teachers perceive
there is a culture of
continuous learning
through professional
development to deliver
consistent technology
infused lessons.
There is a district-
wide culture of
continuous learning
about technology that
is supported through
professional
development training.
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
Give a couple of
examples how you
regularly
advance/update
your learning
about technology.
What are some ways
teachers participate
in ongoing
technology training?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 70
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers feel supported
and safe in taking
technological risks within
their classrooms.
I feel supported and
safe when taking
technological risks in
my classroom?
a. Definitely
disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
What makes you
feel supported
when
experimenting
with technology?
In what ways do you
support teachers in
experimenting with
technology?
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
Sampling
Teachers. The primary stakeholder group of focus for survey items will be K-12 district
teachers. The purpose of this study is to generalize from a sample of district-wide teachers to
draw inferences about their perceptions and behaviors related to technology implementation The
advantages of administering a survey are that it is cross-sectional and able to gather a large
amount of data within a relatively short period of time (Creswell, 2014). It is also important to
survey teachers at varying grade levels to assess the extent to which technology integration is
occurring within the school district as well as to what degree teachers’ value professional
development and feel efficacious about implementing technology concurrently with content
instruction. The sample for the teacher interviews was self-selected; and they were asked at the
end of the survey if they wished to participate in an interview.
District Technology Team. A secondary sample of district technology team members
were interviewed as they play an integral role in providing technology focused professional
development and differentiated support to teachers. Teachers from one elementary school were
excluded. Responses from educational technologists, informational technologists, a site
technologist, and the Chief Technology Officer were compared to teacher survey data in order to
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 71
determine which aspects of the district technology implementation plan are most effective at
promoting high student achievement. This triangulation is key in order to be able to replicate
results.
Recruitment
Teachers. Email and individual correspondence comprised the sampling strategy for the
purpose of this study. Approval was first secured from the district Chief Technology Officer to
send emails to all K-12 teachers in the district. Once approval was granted, emails were sent to
teachers with a survey link. In order to solicit a high level of participation, part of the
recruitment strategy included delivery of a brief presentation at each school’s faculty meeting to
provide an overview of the study. This aspect of the recruitment strategy required approval from
site principals as well as alignment with meeting dates and study deadlines. Survey respondents’
identities remained anonymous.
At the conclusion of the survey teachers were asked if they would like to participate in an
interview, and if so were directed to provide their contact information. To avoid potential bias
and ensure an authentic experience, interviews were not conducted with participants from one of
the district’s elementary school sites since the interviewer is an administrator at this school site.
District Technology Team. Technology team interviews were secured using one to one
correspondence via email or in person. A brief overview of the study was provided to
respondents by explaining that the purpose of the interview is to learn their insight regarding
district technology implementation by teachers.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used for this study included an in-person semi-structured interview
protocol, a survey, an observation checklist, and a document analysis checklist.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 72
Teachers’ Survey Design
The survey was developed based on Clark and Estes (2008) GAP Analysis framework
and questions were derived from knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Fourteen questions assessing Anderson and Krathwohl’s (2001) taxonomy asked teachers to
demonstrate their knowledge based on factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
understanding about technology implementation within their content areas. Information about
value, self-efficacy, mood, attribution, and goal orientation was gathered through eight questions
utilizing Likert Scales and Bandura’s Self-efficacy Scale. Additionally, six questions asked
teachers about organizational aspects as they relate to technology implementation.
Interview Protocols
Semi-structured interview protocols were used for both teacher and technology team
members to ensure the ability for question flexibility and topic exploration. (Merriam and
Tisdell, 2016). The standardized-open ended interview structure was also be efficient in
obtaining participant responses, while providing for minimal variation in the question format and
making analysis easier to perform (Patton, 2002). Questions included in the interview protocol
were open-ended in order to produce descriptive responses. Multiple questions and why
questions were avoided to maintain clarity and avoid speculation or dead-end answers (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, an interview guide was used with all participants to ensure the
same procedure was followed with each individual, making the process systematic and focused
(Patton, 2002).
Teachers. Interviews were conducted with a group of teachers. At the conclusion of the
teacher survey, respondents were asked if they would like to participate in a brief interview. If
so, the survey took respondents to a new page where provided their contact information.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 73
Interview questions were based on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. The
purpose of the interview was to supplement survey questions to either reinforce teacher
responses or uncover insight that was not revealed in the surveys. Questions probed teachers to
provide specific examples in their responses.
District Technology Team. Interviews were also conducted with technology team
members including education technologists, informational technologists, a site technologist, and
the Chief Technology Officer. Questions posed to the technology team focused on knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences. The emphasis of the questions were about
professional development instruction offered to teachers and to what degree it impacts teachers’
implementation of technology within the classroom. Technology team interview questions were
crafted to confirm or disconfirm teacher responses regarding implementation practices and also
provide for an added element of triangulation.
Observation Protocol
Observation participants were recruited from the initial survey delivered to teachers.
Upon completion of the survey items, teachers were asked if they would like to volunteer a
lesson to be observed where technology has been integrated into the content area. Additionally,
the district technology team was consulted to learn if there are teachers who exhibit an especially
strong capacity to implement technology into their content area. Observable items related to
knowledge and organizational influences included objective and instructional alignment,
selection of instructional strategies and activities as well as use of technological tools within the
lesson. Motivational factors such as the level student of engagement as well as both the
students’ and teacher’s willingness to persist in achieving the lesson objective was observed
through words, actions and individuals’ interaction with each other and technology. The
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 74
Observation Checklist can be found in Appendix E.
Document Analysis Protocol
As part of the Document Analysis Protocol, the district technology implementation plan
as well as teacher lesson plans and district communication informing teachers about professional
development opportunities was analyzed. District policies and procedures related to technology
use were also be gathered and analyzed. The Document Analysis Checklist can be found in
Appendix F.
Data Collection
Following University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval,
teacher survey participants were solicited by email for surveys. Teacher interview and
observation participants were solicited at the end of the survey and approached via email.
District Technology Team members were solicited via email or in person. The manner of
contact depended on team member access and availability. Data Collection procedures are
detailed in this section.
Surveys
Surveys were provided to district K-12 teachers via an online link and participants
answered questions using Qualtrics Survey software. The survey was delivered to potential
participants via email; however, email addresses were not collected and respondent identities
remained anonymous. The survey link was accessible for two weeks. After one week, an email
reminder was sent to participants encouraging them to complete the survey if they have not
already done so. Two additional reminders were emailed to participants before the survey link
expired, reminding them to complete the survey if they had not already done so.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 75
Interviews
Interviews took place in person at the district office or at a district school site, which ever
was convenient for participants and helped to establish rapport (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). The
duration of the interview was approximately 30-45 minutes, but did not exceed one hour. All
interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Observations
Observations occurred in participating teachers’ classrooms to view technology
integration instruction. Observations lasted approximately 30 minutes and teachers were
observed only once. Lessons at various grade levels were included to learn how technology
integration is both different and similar at the elementary, middle and high school levels.
Document Analysis
The technology implementation plan, which references standards from The International
Society for Technology in Education, was requested from the Chief Technology Officer. Lesson
plans and student work samples were also requested from teachers at the time of lesson
observations. Technology policies and procedures were obtained from the district website.
Data Analysis
Surveys
The first step in the data analysis was to comprise the total number of respondents and
non-respondents in order to determine response percentages. In order to account for response
bias, wave analysis was utilized to track select survey item responses as a way to determine if
responses change in the final days of the survey window (Creswell, 2014). Qualtrics Survey
software was used to perform both descriptive statistical calculations such as the mean, standard
deviation, etc. as well as inferential statistics like the comparison of groups such as: grade levels
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 76
to further draw inferences and better understand the population (Creswell, 2014). Tables and
figures are present in the data in order to draw conclusions and make meaning of the results
(Creswell, 2014).
Interviews
Interviews were conducted using an interview guide and also recorded. Interviews were
transcribed in a standard way by single spacing text and bolding interview questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Data from interviews was coded using the Constant - Comparative Method to
identify key concepts and common responses among participants based on the coding scheme
derived from Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge motivation and organizational framework. The
first step in the coding process was to review the data using the framework as categories. Axial
coding followed to connect initial categories to one another in order to be classified. Lastly,
selective coding was utilized to identify the most significant codes in order to establish a
hierarchy of data and for patterns to emerge (Lichtman, 2014). All data was recorded and coded
in a Data Analysis Template and separate documents were maintained for teacher and
technology team member interviews. This process provided the necessary data to draw
conclusions about technology usage among teachers district-wide and the role the technology
team plays.
Observations
Observations recorded data about the physical setting, participants, activities and
interactions as well as conversations that occurred between students and the teacher. The
Observation Checklist, located in Appendix E, was used to record data. Field notes were
detailed and descriptive, while maintaining objectivity. Not all influences were observed during
observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 77
Documents
Documents including the District Implementation Plan, policies and procedures, teacher
lesson plans, and work samples were analyzed using the Document Checklist. Questions such
as: how the document has been used and by whom was included in the document analysis
process for each artifact collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Trustworthiness of Data
In order to maintain credibility and trustworthiness of this study triangulation of the data
was utilized, which provides a variety of information collected from a range of participants and
settings (Maxwell, 2013). Both survey data as well as interviews from a subgroup of teachers
and district technology team members was used to either confirm or disconfirm the origins and
reasons for teacher technology integration. Additional data collected through observations and
document analysis also helped to guard against researcher bias as information was drawn from
multiple sources (Bowen, 2009).
Role of Investigator
The investigator in this study provided purpose and context for participating respondents,
while also ensuring transparency to the Internal Review Board. The investigator is employed by
the school district in the study as a site administrator and has participated in both professional
development technology training sessions as well as works with district technology team
members on a regular basis. The author also supervises a school site of potential survey
respondents. However, all survey respondents’ identities remained anonymous as email
addresses were not collected. The author took the necessary steps to protect participants by
discussing their right to privacy and confidentiality.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 78
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study are the sample size and the author’s positionality. The
school district of focus is relatively small, comprised of just three elementary schools, one junior
high school, and one high school. While the promising practice of technology integration is
being studied, the generalizability may be limited as much larger school districts face additional
challenges not applicable here. Since these potential variables are nonexistent in this study, it is
unknown how they may affect a technology integration plan. Another limitation is the author of
this study works within the school district as an administrator at one of the three elementary
school sites. In order to limit potential bias, teachers from this site were not selected as part of
the interview sample nor as observation participants, thus limiting potential participant insight.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 79
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences delineated in Chapter
Three were assessed to learn the ways in which district-wide technology integration and
continual expansion of teacher focused instructional technology opportunities impact student
achievement. Two stakeholder groups: K-12 teachers and district technology team members,
were purposefully selected to understand the symbiotic relationship between participants and
how best practices are utilized to sustain high student achievement.
A survey was distributed to teachers to collect quantitative data, while interviews were
conducted from both a sample of K-12 teachers and technology team members to obtain
qualitative data and ultimately compare results from different stakeholders about the established
influences. Additional qualitative data was collected through document analysis of district
documents such as: policies and procedures, the district technology plan, and teacher lesson
plans as well as student work samples. Survey and interview questions as well as the
observation and document analysis checklists were aligned to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. The aforementioned quantitative and qualitative data types were
collected to validate assumed influences and triangulate findings. Specifically, these data types
were obtained to understand how support and professional development from the district
technology team affects teachers’ use of technology to promote academic achievement among
students.
Data collection for both stakeholders was conducted concurrently. Technology team
interviews were performed, while teachers were asked to complete a 30 question survey. The
final page of the survey invited teachers to complete a Google Form if they were interested in
sitting for a one time one-on-one interview and/or interested in having one of their technology
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 80
focused lessons observed. An initial email followed by two reminder messages were sent by a
district employee during the two week survey data collection window. Teacher interviews and
observations were scheduled and completed after the survey window closed. Document analysis
occurred after all interviews and classroom observations were finished. Since technology team
interviews were not contingent upon the teacher focused data collection, it could be collected
simultaneously. It was also a priority to capitalize on the availability of stakeholder schedules to
ensure all interviews would occur.
Participating Stakeholders
As mentioned above two stakeholder groups comprised this study: district technology
team members and district K-12 teachers. A total of six technology team members were
interviewed: the Chief Technology Officer, two educational technologists, two information
technologists, and a site technologist. The team members were selected because they represent
varied perspectives from the technology department. Surveys collected totaled 105 out of a
possible 180 respondents, but not all respondents answered each question. While all respondents
were certificated employees who paired technology with pedagogy during direct instruction to
students, specific demographics are unknown. Identifying information including district email,
school site assignment, and grade level/department was not collected to protect respondents’
anonymity. However, the survey was sent via participants’ district email address to certificated
staff at all four district school sites. Eleven survey participants also volunteered to provide their
experiences and instruction via an interview and/or observation. One of the 11 respondents was
a librarian who directly instructs students at the secondary level.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 81
Determination of Assets and Needs
Validation occurred through the triangulation of multiple data sources and focused on
two stakeholder groups: K-12 teachers and district technology team members. Data collection
included a teacher survey, both teacher and technology team member interviews, classroom
observations, and document analysis. Use of a convergent parallel mixed methods approach
provided for both quantitative and qualitative data to be collected and analyzed separately and
then compared by similar influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization
(Creswell, 2014).
A teacher survey was disseminated to all K-12 certificated teachers and asked questions
about knowledge, motivation and organizational influences. A strong majority of 75% or higher
for positive agreement on survey items in conjunction with substantiation of a second data source
such as interviews, observations, and document analysis was used to determine if an influence
represented a need or asset. A range of 90 - 100% of participants’ direct response to the
interview question was used to confirm an influence as an asset or need. Interviews were
conducted with both K-12 teachers and technology team members to acquire diverse
perspectives. Saturation was reached for both teacher and technology team member interviews
when responses shared similar information or became redundant. (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Additionally, 80 - 100% of observation data had to positively address the assessed influence to
be classified as an asset. No viable evidence would result in the determination of the influence
as a need. Saturation was decided when the types of technology and ways in which it was
integrated became repetitive. Lastly, document analysis was used as further support in
determining if an influence was an asset or need. Documentation had to directly address the
influence to be classified as an asset. Due to the specificity of documents needed to validate
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 82
some influences, there was no predetermined saturation point, but rather determination if the
document directly addressed the influence. Overall, a variety of data sources provided for
triangulation of data and increased validity.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
Knowledge was assessed by multiple means through surveys, interviews, observations
and document analysis. All instruments were categorized by the different knowledge types:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Results were analyzed to substantiate XYZ
School District’s promising practices of integrating high technology use to promote high student
achievement.
Declarative Factual Knowledge
A combination of survey data, interviews, observations, and document analysis were used
to assess teachers’ declarative factual knowledge.
Influence 1. Teachers know where to find district professional development
opportunities. Surveys combined with teacher interviews and technology team interviews were
used to assess teachers’ knowledge as it relates to the stated influence.
Survey results. A total of 103 respondents checked one to five options about how they
learn about professional development opportunities. While 15.53% checked all options, 27.18%
selected three options, and 16.5% chose a single option. The most common answers were
“through district emails at 79.62% and “from colleagues” at 71.84%. While all options are
plausible, survey data in conjunction with teacher and technology team interviews show email or
contact with technology team members were the primary ways for teachers to learn about
professional development trainings. Table 9 shows the survey question with the response count
and percentages of teachers for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 83
Table 9.
Declarative Knowledge Influence 1: Teacher Survey
Responses
n = 103
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I learn about professional development opportunities:
Check all that apply.
Through district emails 82 79.62%
At staff meetings 66 64.08%
Through discussion with a technology team member 45 43.69%
From district office communication 34 33.01%
From colleagues 74 71.84%
Interviews.
Teachers. Participants were asked to check all options for the ways in which they learn
about professional development trainings. All respondents mentioned communication from
discussion with the district technology team via email, including the Chief Technology Officer
and educational technologists. Additionally, two teachers stated their professional development
is self-driven with colleagues and/or through content specific trainings outside of the district.
Participant 1 shared, “I have a Twitter account. I trade ideas and then I find new articles there.”
Participant 2 commented, “I was fortunate enough to get involved in the program at Cal State
Northridge and they do a lot of advanced PD development particular to science.” These same
teachers also mentioned their technology knowledge has surpassed district offerings. It is
evident teacher responses align with survey question options.
Technology team. Participants were asked how the technology team communicates
professional development training to teachers. All respondents stated email as the primary mode
of communication to inform teachers of professional development opportunities. Direct
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 84
communication by the Chief Technology Officer about conference opportunities as well as
newsletters and weekly communication to principals from educational technologists flow via
email. Lastly, flyers are posted at school sites in high traffic areas to advertise additional
professional development opportunities; however this type of communication was not stated by
teachers.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers know where to find professional
development opportunities was determined to be an asset since all six teacher interviews
mentioned email communication and/or discussion with a technology team member as an
informative tool. This aligns with all six technology team members who also stated email
communication and/or discussion with a technology team member as a way to disseminate this
information to teachers. Additionally, two teacher participants stated colleague contact as well
as 71.84% of survey respondents also checked this option as a way to learn about professional
development trainings. Teacher interview Participants 1 and 4 indicated they use social media,
such as Twitter to locate lesson plan ideas or attend targeted subject matter training at a local
university. Overall, the high percentage of survey and interview data stating communication
from the technology team makes this influence an asset as well as demonstrates communication
about technology trainings occurs among teachers and is not solely driven by district leadership.
Influence 2: Teachers know who to contact from the district technology team
regarding differentiated support or implementation of a new technological practice within
their classrooms. Survey data combined with teacher and technology team interviews assessed
this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 85
Survey results. All 105 respondents answered this survey question about the ways in
which they obtain technological support. Submission of a technology ticket through the district
website as well as contacting the site technologist are methods of support outlined by the district
technology department. Survey responses well align with district procedures. Approximately
88.6% of participants checked the technology ticket option, while 81.9% selected contacting a
school site technologist. Furthermore, survey data shows only 2.9% of teachers selected
“Contact the Educational Services Department,” which is not an effective way to obtain
technology assistance. The Chief Technology is a highly visible district level leader and
regularly communicates her eagerness to support teachers. This may be the reason 40% of
teachers noted they reach out to her directly. Lastly, a culture of communication and
technological sharing is evident as 73% of respondents stated they would ask a colleague.
Thus, teachers and technology team members align their understanding about how to obtain and
offer technological support. Table 10 shows the survey question with the response count and
percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 10.
Declarative Knowledge Influence 1: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 105
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I take these action(s) when I require support or help with
technology implementation in my classroom:
Check all that apply.
Contact the technologist assigned to my site 86 81.9%
Submit a technology ticket through the district website 93 88.6%
Contact the Chief Technology Officer 42 40%
Contact the Educational Services department 3 2.9%
Ask a colleague 77 73%
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 86
Interviews.
Teachers. Of the eight participants interviewed, 100% mentioned contacting the
technology department in some way when they needed support. Moreover, all respondents
offered multiple individuals that can offer technological assistance. Four participants
specifically referenced submitting a technology ticket via the district website and six participants
stated they contact their site technologist. Two participants also mentioned directly contacting
the Chief Technology Officer for support, while three participants stated they would ask a
colleague. It is evident teachers have various ways to seek technological support. Participant 3
summarized the types of support. “I usually try to figure it out myself. Then it depends on what
it is. I'll put in a tech request. If it's a new website, I've probably gotten that website from
another teacher so I'll go and ask that teacher.” Similarly Participant 1 shared, “either I go on
Slack to get help or I will email [the Chief Technology Officer]. Sometimes I put in a ticket.”
Thus, all participant responses correspond with district procedures.
Technology team. Four technology team members were asked the types of support
teachers request from their team. Participant responses depended on their specific roles within
the technology team. Informational technologists’ responses centered on maintaining classroom
equipment. Participant 3 shared, “it really does come down to keeping the staff members’
equipment working.” However, educational technologists stated their main method of support
was responding to a teacher’s inquiry about how to solve a problem associated with the online
grading system, Google Suite, or lesson execution. Participant 1 indicated, “It’s a lot of Google
lessons for students or for a teacher.” Thus, they types of teacher inquiry for support was
determined by the technology team member’s role. Participant 3 summarized the technology
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 87
team’s role. “We always say, for our whole department, our main goal is instruction doesn't
stop.”
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. The influence which states teachers know who to contact from the district
technology team regarding differentiated support or implementation of a new technological
practice within their classrooms was determined to be an asset. Teacher survey data revealed
teachers’ know how to navigate the main district support channels: 88.6% identified technology
ticket submission and 81.9% chose contacting a school site technologist. Furthermore, 100% of
teacher interview participants stated at least one of the aforementioned support in addition to
contacting the Chief Technology Officer or asking a colleague. Lastly, technology team
interview participants shared the ways in which they support teacher requests, which directly
aligned to their role, being either hardware or instructionally focused. Therefore, this influence
is determined to be an asset.
Influence 3: Teachers know the technological tools, both hardware and software
that are appropriate for instructional use in their classrooms. This influence was assessed
through survey data, classroom observations, and analysis of teacher lesson plans.
Survey results. A total of 102 respondents identified at least one technological tool they
regularly use during instruction. Twenty eight percent of respondents selected three out of five
district adopted resources, while 47% chose four or more out of a possible five district
applications. Although 67.7% of respondents stated they find “outside resources” and 57.9%
chose “I find my own,” these selections were checked in addition to other district applications.
Only 2.9% of respondents did not choose a district application. Conversely, 91.2% of
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 88
respondents checked Google Applications. This was the most common selection and also aligns
with district-wide training offerings and annual summer workshops, which utilize the Google
Suite. Textbook resources, Aeries Communications, and Illuminate are also widely used district
programs for daily instruction and grading. It is evident respondents know how to access
technology for a desired outcome determining this influence as an asset. Table 11 shows the
survey question with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 11.
Declarative Knowledge Influence 3: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 102
Count Percentage of
Respondents
From the list provided, identify the technological tools
you regularly use during instruction in your classroom.
Check all that apply.
Google Applications 93 91.2%
Textbook Resources 61 59.8%
Illuminate 48 47.1%
Class Link applications 69 67.6%
Aeries 73 71.6%
Outside Resources 68 66.7%
I find my own 53 51.9%
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 89
Interviews
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. All sample lesson plans and sample student work were created using
at least one Google application. Analysis of work samples and lesson plans demonstrate teachers
utilize technology to show students are able to navigate various Google applications to achieve
the learning objective. High school samples utilized both Google Docs and Google Sheets to
carry out labs on topics such as plate tectonics, mitosis and mass. Embedded within the lab
documents were links to articles with additional pertinent information for students. Thus,
teachers also know how to use multiple Google applications to provide content specific
information to students.
Observations. Six classroom observations were conducted in elementary, middle and
high school classrooms. Five out of six teachers utilized the Google Suite as their primary mode
of lesson delivery. Participant 1 also incorporated Illuminate as part of an error analysis section
of the lesson. Participant 6 was the only teacher who did not use a Google application. However,
the lesson was delivered via a website interface called Nearpod, which part of a previous district
technology training. This particular lesson focused on using the interactive site for primary
document analysis and to generate student analysis through writing and discussion. Other
examples of observations included lessons at the lower elementary level which included a
Google Slides presentation about volcanoes and a coding lesson using Google Sheets. An upper
elementary lesson utilized Google Slides as a mode of feedback as well as a middle school lesson
utilized Google Docs for the purpose of sharing information.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 90
Summary. Influence 3 assessed whether teachers know the technological tools, both
hardware and software that are appropriate for instructional use in their classrooms. Survey data
revealed 91.2% of teacher respondents use Google Applications regularly. Classroom
observations and documents that were analyzed such as: work samples and lesson plans
demonstrate teachers know how to use technology for instructional purposes in their classrooms.
Thus, this influence is determined to be an asset.
Influence 4: Teachers know their content standards that are best taught with
technology. This influence was assessed through survey data, technology team interviews, and
classroom observations.
Survey results. A total of 104 teachers answered this survey question by assessing their
knowledge to determine the type of technology that best supports different content standards.
Over 70% of respondents stated they agreed with the survey statement about being able to
accurately pair technology type with content standards, while 11.54% strongly agreed with this
statement. Conversely, 15.38% disagreed and 2.88% strongly disagreed. It is evident from the
survey results teachers know the type of technology that best supports their content standards.
Table 12 shows the survey question with the response count and percentages of teachers for this
influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 91
Table 12.
Declarative Knowledge Influence 4: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 104
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I know the type of technology that best supports
different content standards.
Definitely Disagree 3 2.88%
Disagree 16 15.38%
Agree 73 70.19%
Definitely Agree 12 11.54%
Interviews.
Teachers. Interviews were not conducted for this influence.
Technology team. A total of five technology team members responded to the question:
What instruction do you provide to teachers to help them match technology with content
standards? Three participants’ responses focused on providing specific content support to
teachers through resources. Participant 1 shared an example of what specific support looks like.
“If the teacher wants to teach fifth grade, American history, I help her create projects for
interactive online museums, magazines, or websites.” Participant 3 stated, “We've had people
come to us and we've tried to come up with some ways to use ideas in the classroom like this
really neat website.” Other responses included support for online textbooks and class roster as
well as providing an end of year survey so that future content specific trainings can be
personalized to teacher need. Participant 2 said, “We will meet with the teacher and ask what
they're working on, what they're interested in, and then do professional development based on
that.”
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 92
Observations. Six classroom observations were conducted ranging from elementary to
high school. All six observations appropriately paired technology type with content standards.
For example, Participant 2 used a Google Hyper Doc to provide information, practice, and
extension activities about compound sentences to actively engage students in a grammar lesson.
Additionally, Participant 5 utilized Google Slides to review effective presentation skills and slide
construction as well as to create a summative assessment about Ancient Egypt.
Summary. Influence 4 assessed whether teachers know the content standards that are best
taught with technology. This influence was deemed an asset due to both teacher survey results
and classroom observations. All six observations effectively paired content standards with
technology as well as 70.19% of teacher survey respondents stated they agreed with the survey
statement about being able to accurately pair a technology type with content standards, and
11.54% strongly agreed with this statement. Additionally, technology team interviews explicitly
stated how the technology department supports teachers’ integration of content standards and
technology appropriately. In sum, this influence is determined to be an asset.
Conceptual Knowledge
A combination of survey data, interviews, observations, and document analysis were used
to assess teachers’ conceptual knowledge.
Influence 5: Teachers compare various technological tools to determine which is
most appropriate in achieving their instructional goal. This influence was assessed through
teacher survey data and teacher interviews.
Survey results. A total of 103 participants responded to their level of agreement for the
following statement: My lesson objective determines the type of technology I might integrate
into my instruction. Approximately 63% of teachers selected agree, while 29.1% of teachers
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 93
chose definitely agree. Conversely, 6.8% of teachers indicated disagree and less than 1%
designated definitely disagree as their response. Overall, 92.2% of respondents stated their lesson
objectives drive the type of technology they integrate into their instruction. Table 13 shows the
survey question with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 13.
Conceptual Knowledge Influence 5: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 103
Count Percentage of
Respondents
My lesson objective determines the type of
technology I might integrate into my instruction.
Definitely Disagree 1 >1%
Disagree 7 6.8%
Agree 65 63.1%
Definitely Agree 30 29.1%
Interviews.
Teachers. Participants were asked to provide an example of how they have paired a
lesson in their content area with technology. All eight participants could provide a concrete
example of technology integration with a content specific area and all examples named a district
promoted technology. Seven teachers mentioned using a technology type within the Google
Suite. One participant shared the use of Illuminate for data analysis with students. Respondents
also communicated a variety of ways in which they utilize technology within their content area.
Participant 2 stated, “For most labs I've been using Google Forms and Google Sheets
extensively. I use Google Forms for collaborative data collection. In most of my labs I've also
used Google Slides to create models that students come up with and are part of NGSS.”
Similarly, Participant 8 stated students, “find an interesting anecdote from the Gold Rush and
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 94
then tell that story in comic book form. We use Google Slides and we reformat it so it is comic
book shaped.” Other responses described using Google Docs for writing projects as well as
Google Hyper Docs to engage students in content like grammar. It is evident from teacher
responses that they are able to navigate technology within varying content areas.
Technology team. Interviews were not conducted for this influence
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. A total of six observations were conducted and 100% of teachers’ lessons
showed they knew how to pair technology appropriately with their instructional goal. Some
examples include using Google Sheets to teach first grade students coding. Another example is
the utilization of the Illuminate data system to conduct error analysis of test questions and to also
review the correct responses with students. Additionally, Google Slides was used in both lower
and upper elementary grades to transfer learned science and social studies content into a
presentation format for sharing and collaboration. The aforementioned examples demonstrate
teachers’ ability to decipher the appropriate technology type to achieve the lesson objective.
Summary. The assumed influence that teachers know how to compare various
technological tools in order to determine which is the most appropriate in achieving an
instructional goal was determined to be an asset. This is because a combined 92.2% of teachers
agreed or strongly agreed with the survey statement that they possess the knowledge to do so.
Furthermore, 100% of teacher interview participants were able to provide a detailed example of
how they have appropriately paired a technology type with a stated instructional objective.
Lastly, all six classroom observations also confirmed teachers paired technology applicably for
the instructional goal. Thus, this influence is deemed an asset.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 95
Influence 6: Teachers are able to generalize models and structures learned from
professional development. This influence was assessed through teacher survey data and
technology team interviews.
Survey results. Ninety-five participants responded to the statement about their ability to
adapt ideas from professional development sessions into their instruction. The majority of
respondents agreed with this statement, 68.4%, while 25.3% definitely agreed. Both disagree
and definitely disagree categories totaled 3.2%, or three respondents. Overall, 93.7% of
respondents stated they agreed or definitely agreed with being able to generalize models and
structures learned from professional development. Table 14 shows the survey question with the
response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 14.
Conceptual Knowledge Influence 6: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 95
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I can adapt ideas from professional development
sessions into my instruction.
Definitely Disagree 3 3.2%
Disagree 3 3.2%
Agree 65 68.4%
Definitely Agree 24 25.3%
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 96
Interviews.
Teachers. Interviews were not conducted for this influence
Technology team. While three participants were asked to describe some models they
provide that teachers can transfer to their classrooms, only two made specific training references.
Participant 1 recounted summer Google camps the technology team holds and described the
training as a “kind of framework that we're going to show you this, now go play. Then we're
going to test you on it.” Participant 1 also shared, “after every little technology demonstration
conversation around the room, we ask how you would use this? We’re trying to show that it's
usable and transferable to their content.” Participant 2 stated technology team members are
afforded the flexibility to develop individual interests with a teacher. Participant 2 further shared,
“I work on those kind of models and deliver them to the teacher. We'll do that through buyback
days or I'll just go do demo lessons.” The third participant was not part of the educational
technologist team, and thus stated the question did not directly apply.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. The influence which states teachers are able to generalize models and
structures learned from professional development was determined to be an asset due to the
overwhelmingly high percentage of combined agree and disagree survey data responses, 93.7%.
Although the technology team interview participants were small, two of three respondents were
key members who facilitate professional development training and regularly work with teachers
in their classrooms. Lastly, while classroom observations were not analyzed in detail for this
influence, five out of six observations utilized the Google Suite.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 97
Influence 7: Teachers understand how different technological tools support
different content delivery. This influence was assessed through teacher survey data, data
analysis, and observations.
Survey results. Ninety-four respondents answered the survey question by selecting their
level of agreement regarding the following statement: I change how I use technology based on
the content I am teaching. While 61.7% of respondents agree, 31.9% definitely agree with the
statement. The percentage of respondents who disagreed and definitely disagreed was 4.3% and
2.1% respectively. The high percentage of respondents who both agree and definitely agree was
93.6%. Thus, the survey data is an asset for this influence. Table 15 shows the survey question
with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 15.
Conceptual Knowledge Influence 7: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I change how I use technology based on the content I
am teaching.
Definitely Disagree 2 2.1%
Disagree 4 4.3%
Agree 58 61.7%
Definitely Agree 30 31.9%
Interviews.
Teachers. Interviews were not conducted for this influence.
Technology team. Interviews were not conducted for this influence.
Data analysis. Student work and lesson plans demonstrate teachers adjust the type of
technology they use based on the content they are teaching. For instance, one work sample
utilizes the Read, Write, Think website to assist students in writing Haiku poems. Another
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 98
example uses a Google Hyper Doc to engage students in learning about maps and directions.
The presentation included a video, informational article, and practice as well as an extension
activity for students. A sample of secondary science lesson plans utilized the Google Suite to
organize labs. For instance, Google Sheets and Google Forms were used to both input data and
collaborate about the results for a mitosis lab about onion cells. Similarly, a lab about the
scientific question utilized a Google Doc to provide students instructions as well as embedded
articles to support student understanding as applicable. A Google Form to input data was also
part of this lab. Overall, work samples and lesson plans show how teachers adapt technology use
to fit content area requirements.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 7 assessed whether teachers change how they use technology based
on the content they are teaching. This influence was determined to be an asset due to the survey
data and document analysis of lesson plans and student work samples. Survey data showed that
93.6% of respondents agreed or definitely agreed with the survey statement. All work samples
and lesson plans also demonstrated that teachers adjust their technology selections based on
content. Thus, this influence is an asset.
Procedural Knowledge
A combination of survey data, interviews, observations, and document analysis were used to
assess teachers’ procedural knowledge.
Influence 8: Teachers know when to apply skills learned from professional
development sessions. This influence was assessed through teacher survey data and teacher
interviews.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 99
Survey results. Ninety-two respondents selected one or more reasons to integrate
technology into learning. Twenty-five respondents checked all options, 14 respondents checked
three options, and six respondents selected only one option. Student collaboration received the
highest percentage of respondent selections, 85.9%, while projects and writing assignments both
totaled 78.3%. Approximately 61% of respondents selected writing and 53.3% used technology
for class discussion. It is evident teachers use technology to achieve a variety of lesson goals.
Table 16 shows the survey question with the response count and percentages of teachers for this
influence.
Table 16.
Procedural Knowledge Influence 8: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 92
Count Percentage of
Respondents
What do you look for in a lesson that would prompt
you to use technology? Check all that apply.
Student collaboration 79 85.9%
Class discussion 49 53.3%
Research 72 78.3%
Writing 56 60.9%
Projects 72 78.3 %
Interviews.
Teachers. Participants were asked how they decide to apply learning from training into
their classrooms. Although all eight responses centered on classroom implementation, they
varied in their approach. Six respondents referenced ease of integration being a decisive factor.
Knowledge of how the technological tool will function within their classrooms as well as time
and accessibility were key factors to implementation. Participant 4 shared, “I try to do it right
away. I got a lot out of [the class] because it [was] really easily accessible.” Similarly,
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 100
Participant 8 stated, “If it's from a training, I usually come in the next day and I try within the
next week to just experiment.” Participant 6 mentioned the desire to see a sample in order to
increase comfortability. Participant 6 also asserted, “It's better to do with the kinks than not at
all,” referencing new technological tools learned from district training. Additionally, two
respondents also shared the lesson objective and content area topics were driving factors in
determining how technology from trainings was applied to participants’ classrooms. Other
responses included the participant’s level of excitement for the training topic as well as the
importance of viewing the learning tool from the students’ perspective. In sum, ease of use, time,
and instructional goals were teachers’ primary considerations for how to implement learning
from training into their classrooms.
Technology team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. The influence, which states teachers know when to apply skills learned from
professional development sessions, was determined to be an asset. Survey data revealed
teachers’ use technological tools for a variety of instructional purposes such as: student
collaboration, class discussion, research, writing, and projects. A total of 27.2% of respondents
selected all options and 15.2% selected three options. Student collaboration received the highest
percentage of respondents at 85.9%. Projects and writing assignments both totaled 78.3%.
Approximately 61% of respondents selected writing and 53.3% used technology for class
discussion. Thus, all instructional goals received percentages of 50% or higher. Teacher
interviews substantiated survey data as evidenced by participants’ responses. Key components of
classroom implementation such as: time, ease of use, and lesson goals were important
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 101
considerations for the transfer of technological tools learned in a training session to the
classroom. Thus, this influence is an asset.
Influence 9. Teachers know how to integrate instructional and technological skills
and knowledge. This influence was assessed through teacher survey data and observations.
Survey results. Ninety-five respondents answered this survey question by selecting their
level of agreement for the following statement: I know how to integrate technology into my
instruction. From the survey data it is evident respondents possess the knowledge to integrate
technology into their instruction as 66.3% agreed with the statement and 25.1% definitely
agreed. While 5.3% disagreed, only 3.2% strongly disagreed with the statement. Over 91% of
respondents selected a favorable response of agree or definitely agree, concluding this influence
to be an asset. Table 17 shows the survey question with the response count and percentages of
teachers for this influence.
Table 17.
Procedural Knowledge Influence 9: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 95
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I know how to integrate technology into my instruction.
Definitely Disagree 3 3.2%
Disagree 5 5.3%
Agree 63 66.3%
Definitely Agree 24 25.3%
Interviews.
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 102
Observations. In all six observations, teachers integrated technology with content
throughout the duration of the lesson. In a history classroom, the teacher utilized Google Slides
to promote student discussion and collaboration about Ancient Egypt. The teacher also provided
student feedback regarding the structure of student created slides to communicate to students
how best to convey content in their presentations. In a secondary class, the teacher integrated
technology into the lesson to promote construction of detailed student responses in citing
evidence to support a claim. Lastly, in a primary class, a teacher was observed using multiple
technological tools to introduce students to coding. For instance, first a video was viewed by
students to discuss the purpose of computer programs and after the teacher used Google Sheets
to model how to code a holiday picture. In sum, teachers were observed using technology to
enhance the delivery of their content and achieve the lesson objective.
Summary. Influence 9 assessed whether teachers know how to integrate instructional
and technological skills and knowledge. This influence was determined to be an asset due to
survey data results and classroom observations. An educational technologist from the
technology team shared, “Some [teachers] are seeing these things over and over again, and
realizing that this can be applied to totally different content.” This statement supports the survey
data of over 91% agreeing or definitely agreeing with the statement about being able to integrate
technology and content to achieve an instructional goal. Additionally, 100% of classroom
observations demonstrated teachers are using training such as the summer Google Camp offered
by the technology team to use the Google Suite in ways to effectively engage and inform
students with the support of technology. Thus, this influence is determined to be an asset.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 103
Metacognitive Knowledge
A combination of survey data, interviews, observations, and document analysis were used to
assess teachers’ metacognitive knowledge.
Influence 10. Teachers reflect on personal gaps in knowledge and skills, knowing
when to seek out professional development support. This influence was assessed through
teacher survey data as well as teacher and technology team member interviews.
Survey results. Ninety-five respondents selected a level of agreement for three different
survey questions used to assess this influence. Multiple survey questions assessed this influence
to avoid double barrel questioning. Approximately 61% of respondents agreed and 16.8%
definitely agreed with the following statement: I regularly reflect on my technological
knowledge/skills. However, 18.9% of respondents disagreed with the statement about reflection
of technological knowledge/skills and 3.2% definitely disagreed.
Similarly, 95 respondents replied to the statement about seeking out technology support
as needed. Sixty percent agreed with this statement and 37.9% definitely agreed. Overall,
97.9% of respondents were in agreement with this statement about their willingness to seek out
technology support. A small percentage, 1.1%, both disagreed and definitely disagreed with this
statement.
The following statement was also answered by 95 respondents: I talk through my lessons
using technology with peers or a technology team member. While 53.7% agreed and 7.4
definitely agreed with this statement, 34.7 disagreed and 4.2% definitely disagreed. From the
survey results, a combined 77.9% responded they regularly reflect on their technological
knowledge/skills. It is also apparent from the survey data for this influence that teachers feel
overwhelmingly comfortable asking others for technology support. However, discussion with
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 104
peers or a technology team member about one’s lessons using technology earned lower
agreement overall: 53.7% agreed, while 34.7% disagreed. Tables 18, 19, and 20 show the survey
questions with the response count and percentages of teacher responses for this influence.
Table 18.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 10: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 95
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I regularly reflect on my technological knowledge/skills.
Definitely Disagree 3 3.2%
Disagree 18 18.9%
Agree 58 61.1%
Definitely Agree 16 16.8%
Table 19.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 10: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 95
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I seek out technology support as needed.
Definitely Disagree 1 1.1%
Disagree 1 1.1%
Agree 57 60%
Definitely Agree 36 37.9%
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 105
Table 20.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 10: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 95
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I talk through my lessons using technology with peers or
a technology team member.
Definitely Disagree 4 4.2%
Disagree 33 34.7%
Agree 51 53.7%
Definitely Agree 7 7.4%
Interviews.
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology team. Four technology team members were asked how they would respond to
the following scenario: A teacher approaches you after attending a recent training session and
states she is experiencing difficulty implementing technology into her content in area. She is
frustrated and believes the training to be a waste of time. All participants shared they would
provide individual support and encouragement to the teacher. Participant 2 provided specific
details about what the support might look like. “For us a lot of it is just in person check-ins and
to just talk [teachers] through. Participant 3 also offered additional concrete methods of support.
“I might offer to help them individually and see if there's something specific that they're not
comfortable with, and [then] help them get more comfortable with it. I also try to encourage
them. It might not actually be a waste of time. It might just be more of an effort.” Lastly,
Participant 4 also shared what a hypothetical conversation with a teacher might sound like. “Let's
talk about one thing and then we [will] go piece by piece. Participant 4 also added, “They're
more likely to use it again if they've seen me do it with their kids.” In sum, all technology team
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 106
members offered ways to reduce the teacher’s frustration through differentiated support which
may include one-one meetings or modeling via demonstration lessons.
The same four technology team members were asked a second scenario question: It is
the end of the school year and you are debriefing with two teachers one who has utilized best
practices and another who is struggling to understand the benefits of technology integration.
How would you address each teacher’s individual situation? All participants stated they would
continue to search for challenges and/or resources for the teacher demonstrating best practices in
her teaching such as: books, articles or lessons to try. Participant 1 provided an example of one
teacher who is described as an innovator. “She's always trying out our new things and if we ever
have something we want to try, she's the pilot for it. What she gets is the benefit of feeling like
an expert in in her profession and we get to see things in action.” Participant 4 added, “For the
person that is ready to forge ahead, I will say, ‘Have you thought about this?’ The end of the year
or summertime is a great time to set up a one on one meeting.” Overall, as evidenced from the
participants’ responses, the technology team supports individual growth.
Similarly, for the struggling teacher, 100% of participants stated they would assume an
individualized approach by listening to the teacher’s concerns in order to decipher the specific
problem and possible solutions. All participants also mentioned offering positive reinforcement
to acknowledge the teacher’s existing efforts. Participant 1 shared, “I say, ‘hey, what do you
think about this? I see that you've been doing this. Come in and try this lesson out. Can I just see
what this would look like if you did this?’” Participant 2 added, “I would try to see what they do
really well and then how can we just amplify that with a piece of technology. I would find the
thing they're comfortable with and add a little bit.” In sum, individualized meetings and support
is offered by the technology team to teachers.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 107
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 10 assessed whether teachers reflect on personal gaps in knowledge
and skills as well as know when to seek out professional development support. This influence
was determined to be an asset due to survey data results and technology team member
interviews. Survey results showed 77.9% of teachers agreed or definitely agreed that they
regularly reflect on their technological knowledge/skills. Similarly, respondents’ who selected
agree and definitely agree totaled 97.9% in response to the statement about seeking out
technology support as needed. This data is further supported by technology team interview
responses as participants were able to detail the ways in which they provide differentiated
teacher support. While the aforementioned survey results demonstrate a strong majority of
respondents in agreement with the statements, discussion with peers or a technology team
member about one’s lessons using technology earned a lower percentage of agreement overall at
53.7% and a higher percentage of disagreement, 34.7%. However, technology team interview
responses provided sample discussion questions they may use to engage with a teacher to assess
needs as well as resources they can provide. Thus, this influence is determined to be an asset.
Influence 11. Teachers self-assess their classroom instruction and adjust
instructional strategies as needed. This influence was assessed through teacher survey data and
technology team member interviews.
Survey results. Ninety-five respondents answered both survey questions associated with
this influence. The first question to assess this influence asked respondents their level of
agreement for the following statement: I regularly self-assess how I use technology in my
classroom. A total of 68.4% of teachers selected agree, while 12.6% chose definitely agree.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 108
Only 14.7% of respondents selected disagree and 4.2% favored definitely disagree. Overall, data
from this survey question shows the majority of teachers self-assess how they integrate
technology into their instruction.
The second survey question used to assess this influence asked for respondents’ level of
agreement to the following statement: Based on self-assessment, I adjust instructional strategies
as necessary. Over 75% of respondents agreed with this statement, while 18.9% definitely
agreed. Conversely, 3.2% disagreed and 2.1% definitely disagreed. Therefore, teachers adjust
the instructional strategies used in their classroom based upon self-assessment. Tables 21 and 22
show the survey questions with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 21.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 11: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 95
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I regularly self-assess how I use technology in my
classroom.
Definitely Disagree 4 4.2%
Disagree 14 14.7%
Agree 65 68.4%
Definitely Agree 12 12.6%
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 109
Table 22.
Metacognitive Knowledge Influence 11: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 95
Count Percentage of
Respondents
Based on self-assessment, I adjust instructional
strategies as necessary.
Definitely Disagree 2 2.1%
Disagree 3 3.2%
Agree 72 75.8%
Definitely Agree 18 18.9%
Interviews.
Teacher. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology team. Six technology team members were asked the following scenario
question to assess their support for teacher self-assessment: A teacher wants to adjust her
instructional strategies to increase technology usage in her classroom. How would you engage in
a discussion with the teacher who is undergoing self-assessment of her classroom instruction?
Five participants mentioned having a conversation with the struggling teacher, while one
discussed visiting the teacher’s classroom to offer support. The overriding idea is individualized
support. Participant 4 summarized the technology team’s goal and the types of questions they
broach with teachers. “We're trying to gauge what [the teacher] needs are so we're having these
kind of discussions with teachers all the time. What are you trying to do and what do you want to
accomplish? Where do you feel technology fits within that?” Similarly, Participant 2 shared
ideas about using reflection as a tool with teachers as well as how the technology team’s role has
shifted over time towards pedagogy. “I love reflection so I think it would be important to have
[the teacher] tell me what she thinks works well. We're shifting a little bit in the technology
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 110
department. It isn't all about technology. We're trying to help teachers make the choice that
makes sense.” In sum, technology team members support teachers’ self-assessment as it relates
to technology integration.
Data analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 11 assessed whether teachers self-assess their classroom
instruction and adjust instructional strategies as needed. This influence was determined to be an
asset due to survey data results and technology team member interviews. Survey data revealed
that teachers both self-assess how they use technology with their instruction; a combined 81%
both agreed and definitely agreed. Additionally, 94.7% of respondents agreed and definitely
agreed they adjust their instruction based on self-assessment. Interview data also shows
technology team members encourage teachers’ self-assessment through individualized
conversations, reflection, and in class support. Participant 6 summarized how conversations have
shifted overtime. “Technology is now a natural part so we talk about what [are teachers] non-
tech goals.” In sum, teachers’ self- assessment of instructional strategies is evident through both
teacher survey data and technology team interviews. Thus, this influence was determined to be
an asset.
Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
Motivation was assessed by multiple means through surveys, interviews, observations
and document analysis. All instruments were categorized by value, self-efficacy, mood,
attribution, and goal orientation. Results were analyzed to corroborate XYZ School District’s
promising practices of integrating high technology use to promote high student achievement.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 111
Motivation: Value
A combination of survey data and interviews were used to assess teachers’ sense of value for
technology integration.
Influence 12. Teachers value professional training opportunities to hone
instructional strategies in conjunction with technology within their classrooms. This
influence was assessed through teacher survey data and teacher interviews.
Survey results. Ninety-four respondents answered the following question: Compared to
other district professional development training, how much do you value technology training?
Thirty three percent of respondents selected moderately value, while 50% chose strongly value.
No respondents selected the do not value at all option, and 17% chose slightly value. Overall,
100% of respondents perceived district technology trainings to possess some level of value,
although the majority of respondents strongly valued district trainings. Table 23 shows the
survey question with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 23.
Motivation: Value Influence 12: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
Compared to other district professional development
training, how much do you value technology training?
Do not value at all 0 0%
Slightly value 16 17%
Moderately value 31 33%
Strongly value 47 50%
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 112
Interviews.
Teachers. Eight participants were asked the following question: How valuable is it for
you to attend technology trainings? Five participants stated technology trainings are very
valuable. Participant 6 shared why the trainings are personally valued. “It's so valuable because
not only are [students] more engaged when there is a tech component, I feel like they're actually
really wanting to read and figure, comprehend, and extrapolate what was there and put it on the
computer.” One participant stated the value of training depends on the applicability of training
to grade level interests and goals. While two participants stated the trainings are not personally
valuable, they asserted it is because they have already attended the district offered trainings and
now seek additional enrichment. For example, Participant 2 pointed out, “Most [training] has
happened at the school site with monthly trainings, which from what I hear are positive. I just
haven't attended them because I literally could teach all of them and I already know what they're
doing.” Participant 1 echoed a similar sentiment. “I find on campus I've already done those
things. So I try to challenge myself and find new things. It's usually self-driven. I want to
improve my practice because I don't think that I will ever be perfect.” Overall, teachers value
technology training. However, once teachers have participated in what has been offered by the
district, they seek outside resources.
Technology team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 12 assessed to what degree teachers value professional
development opportunities to hone instructional strategies in conjunction with technology within
their classrooms. This influence was determined to be an asset due to survey data results and
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 113
teacher interviews. Survey results showed 50% of teachers strongly valued technology trainings
when compared to other district professional development offerings. Additionally, 33% of
respondents assigned moderate value to technology trainings. Overall, all respondents found a
level of value in technology trainings according to the survey data. Teacher interview responses
further substantiated survey results as all teachers discussed value to some degree. Although two
teachers said they did not personally value the current technology trainings, they also clarified
this is because they have participated in all the offered trainings thus far and are now searching
for additional professional development training centered on technology. Therefore, technology
trainings are of value to teachers and some are looking for further ways to enhance their learning
in this area. Thus, this influence was determined to be an asset.
Influence 13. Teachers value technology integration to support student acquisition of
content knowledge. This influence was assessed through teacher survey data and teacher
interviews.
Survey results. Ninety-four respondents shared their level of agreement for the following
statement: It is important for me to use technology in my classroom because it supports my
students’ content knowledge. While 55.3% agreed with the statement, 35.1% definitely agreed.
The combined percentages totaled 90.4%, demonstrating a high level of agreement among
respondents. No teachers definitely disagreed, while 9.6% disagreed with the statement. Based
on the aforementioned survey data, teachers perceive technology usage to support student
acquisition of content knowledge. Table 24 shows the survey question with the response count
and percentages of teachers for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 114
Table 24.
Motivation: Value Influence 13: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
It is important for me to use technology in my classroom
because it supports my students’ content knowledge.
Definitely disagree 0 0%
Disagree 9 9.6%
Agree 52 55.3%
Definitely agree 33 35.1%
Interviews.
Teachers. Eight participants were asked to describe the reasons they incorporate
technology into their teaching. The most prevalent answers among all participants were student
engagement, teacher convenience, and the ability for students to maintain up to date
technological skills. Multiple participant responses addressed more than one reason to utilize
technology. Participant 6’s response encompassed all of the previously mentioned responses. “I
use technology in my lessons to keep [students] engaged. I use technology in my classroom to
keep [students] up to date on the current applications and software they could use and to make
things more efficient or save them time.” Besides technology being part of students’ everyday
lives, Participant 5 shared additional benefits to using technology in the classroom. “I try to
balance screens and traditional teaching, but I just think it's important to pick and choose the best
way to deliver my instruction to them. The other thing is the technology that I use in my
classroom makes it so much easier to differentiate for my kids in a meaningful way and in first
grade the ability level is like from A to Z.” It is evident teachers are incorporating technology
into their content areas to support student learning.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 115
Technology team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence
Summary. Influence 13 assessed teachers’ level of value as it relates to technology
integration to support student acquisition of content knowledge. This influence was determined
to be an asset due to survey data results and teacher interviews. A total of 90.4% of teachers
agreed or definitely agreed with the statement about assigning value to technology integration in
order to support students’ content knowledge attainment. Participant interview responses detailed
the ways in which teachers find value in technology usage in the classroom. While student
engagement was the most common response, convenience as well as maintenance of student
technological skills and the importance of future use in their daily lives were additional reasons.
Participant 3 synthesized the importance of technology use. “We can do so much more, so much
faster, and we can share things a lot faster.” Therefore, teachers value technology to support
content acquisition. Thus, this influence was determined to be an asset.
Motivation: Self-efficacy
A combination of survey data, interviews, and observations were used to assess teachers’ sense
of self-efficacy for technology integration.
Influence 14. Teachers are confident they can transfer their learning from
professional development into the classroom. This influence was assessed through teacher
survey data and observations.
Survey results. Ninety-five respondents selected a number from 0 - 100 to answer the
following statement: I am confident I can use what I learn in professional development training
provided by the technology team right now. The mean was 76.78 and the standard deviation was
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 116
21.34. Further analysis of responses shows the majority of teachers assessed their confidence to
lie between 81 - 100, with 34.7% of respondents selecting 1 - 90 and 23.25% choosing 91 - 100
on the scale. Additionally, eight respondents chose 100, while one respondent selected zero.
The wide range of overall responses contributes to a larger standard deviation. However, survey
results signify that teachers generally possess confidence in that they can transfer their learning
from professional development to the classroom. Table 25 shows the survey question with the
response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 117
Table 25.
Motivation: Self-efficacy Influence 14: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 95
Count Percentage of
Respondents
Select a number from 0 to 100 using the scale below in
response to the following statement: I am confident I
can use what I learn in professional development
training provided by the technology team right now.
0 – 10 2 2%
11 – 20 0 0%
21 – 30 1 1.1%
31 – 40 2 2%
41- 50 8 8.4%
51 – 60 6 6.3%
61 – 70 7 7.4%
71 – 80 14 14.7%
81 – 90 33 34.7%
91 – 100 22 23.2%
Interviews.
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology Team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. Six teachers were observed facilitating lessons rich with technology
integration. Five out of six teachers selected a Google application to use with students. One
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 118
teacher used a website called Nearpod, an online tool promoting student engagement. Another
teacher used Illuminate, an online testing and data collection platform, in tandem with a Google
application. Google Sheets was used to assist elementary students learn about coding, while
Google Slides provided students a platform to create digital presentations in both science and
social studies. During the observation of the upper elementary lesson, the teacher also utilized
Google Slides to facilitate collaboration and feedback between students. Similarly, Google Docs
was used by secondary students to collaborate with one another. Google Camps are professional
development trainings offered by the technology team to train teachers on the Google Suite.
Illuminate trainings have also been offered to teachers. Thus, observations demonstrate teachers
are transferring learning from professional development training to their classrooms.
Summary. Influence 14 assessed teachers’ level of confidence that they can transfer their
learning from professional development into the classroom. This influence was determined to be
an asset due to teacher survey data and classroom observations. Almost 58% of respondents
assigned their level of confidence in transferring professional development takeaways to their
classroom between 81 and 100 on the interactive scale. Furthermore, eight respondents selected
a value of 100. Although this influence received a wider range of score responses, 86.3% of
respondents rated their confidence at a value of 51 or higher. Observational data also
substantiated teachers are using learning from professional development with their students, as
approximately 83% of observations used a Google application, but 100% of lessons were
observed using a tool gained from professional development or conversation with a technology
team member. Additionally, a district technology team member noted the thinking behind
professional development training offered to teachers. “We want to empower everyone to feel
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 119
they can take risks, try new things, and experiment. When we're thinking about training, it's what
can they take away immediately from us.” In sum, this influence was determined to be an asset.
Influence 15. Teachers are confident they can implement technology into content
lessons. This influence was assessed through teacher survey data and both teacher and
technology team interviews.
Survey results. Ninety-four respondents selected a number from 0 - 100 to answer the
following statement: I am confident I can incorporate technology into my lessons right now.
The mean was 83.3 and the standard deviation was 18.93. Further analysis of responses shows
the majority of teachers assessed their confidence to lie between 91 - 100, or 42.6%, and an
additional 28.7% of respondents associated with the 81 - 90 range. Furthermore, 27 respondents
chose 100, while one respondent selected 5, accounting for lowest 1.1% on the scale. In sum,
teachers exhibit confidence in their ability to incorporate technology into their lessons. Table 26
shows the survey question with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 120
Table 26.
Motivation: Self-efficacy Influence 15: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
Select a number from 1 to 100 using the scale below in
response to the following statement: I am confident I
can incorporate technology into my lessons right now.
0 – 10 1 1.1%
11 – 20 1 1.1%
21 – 30 0 0%
31 – 40 2 2.1%
41- 50 3 3.2%
51 – 60 5 5.3%
61 – 70 8 8.5%
71 – 80 7 7.4%
81 – 90 27 28.7%
91 – 100 40 42.6%
Interviews.
Teachers. Eight participants were asked the following question: To what degree do you
feel confident about using technology to teach your lessons? Seven out of eight teachers noted
they feel confident or very confident. While one teacher self-rated a 6 out of 10, this individual
was observed facilitating a lesson driven by technology with ease. The following participants
shared their perspectives about using technology as a component of their teaching. Participant 3
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 121
commented, “It's very rare that I run into any kind of a hiccup and if I do I just figure it out.”
Participant 4 said, “I'm pretty confident. I think I always have something to learn.” Generally,
teachers are very confident with technology integration into their content areas.
Technology Team. A sample of three technology team members were asked their degree
of confidence in helping teachers to implement technology into their lessons. All participants
stated they possess confidence in addressing teachers’ various needs. Participant 1 stated, “I
think the technology team is doing a great work and it's multi-tiered” Participant 1 also attributed
the team’s success to the Chief Technology Officer’s leadership. “The team that [the Chief
Technology Officer] has created is excellent, and it's not accidental. She's very conscious of not
only managing a team, but for the purpose of leading and helping teachers.” Similarly,
Participant 3 echoed Participant 1’s ideas. “As a whole entity, [I am] extremely confident
between our individualized expertise. There's really nothing that we can't figure out fast. If we
don't automatically know the answer individually, [as a team we do]. It is evident the technology
team is confident in supporting teachers’ use of technology with lessons.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence
Summary. Influence 15 assessed teachers’ level of confidence as it relates to their
implementation of technology into content lessons. This influence was determined to be an asset
due to teacher survey data and technology team interview responses. Over 71% of respondents
assigned their confidence level to a value between 81 and 100 on the scale and 28.7% of teachers
selected 100. Additionally, the technology team members interviewed stated they felt very
confident as a team to address teachers’ technology needs and also expressed confidence in the
Chief Technology Officer’s leadership style, which is a teaching approach. A district technology
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 122
team member summarized the Chief Technology Leader’s ability to lead. “[The Chief
Technology Officer] truly is our fearless leader and because we have a leader that is willing to do
whatever it takes, we do whatever it takes.” Thus, the technology team is a cohesive unit
confident to support teachers with their instructional needs. Lastly, overwhelmingly the teachers
interviewed shared they felt confident or very confident using technology within their lessons.
Therefore, this influence was determined to be an asset.
Motivation: Mood
A combination of survey data, interviews, document analysis, and observations were used to
assess teachers’ mood regarding technology integration.
Influence 16. Teachers feel positive about professional development. This influence
was assessed through teacher survey data and technology team interviews.
Survey results. Ninety-three respondents selected their level of agreement with the
following statement: I feel positive about technology focused professional development
trainings. A total of 87.1% of respondents agreed or definitely agreed, while 11.8% of
respondents disagreed, and 1.1% definitely disagreed. Based on the survey data results, it is clear
teachers feel positive about technology focused professional development. Table 27 shows the
survey question with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 123
Table 27.
Motivation: Mood Influence 16: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 93
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I feel positive about technology focused professional
development trainings.
Definitely disagree 1 1.1%
Disagree 11 11.8%
Agree 56 60.2%
Definitely agree 25 26.9%
Interviews.
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology Team. Both educational technology team members, who also plan and
facilitate professional development trainings, were asked the following question: How do you
communicate positive feelings about technology usage during professional development training
sessions? Both participant responses centered on individualized attention offered to teachers
during trainings. Participant 1 shared, “Now everything is one [to] one. We try to have a fun
atmosphere. We bring in our student interns, who are high school students. They’re helping
teach [teachers] and that's probably the biggest thing that we do.” Similarly, Participant 2
discussed the value the technology team offers teachers and the purpose to serve, which has
increased teacher acceptance of training sessions. “We are positive in general about who we are
and what we have to offer. Teachers, I think have picked up on that and believe us so they're
more likely to listen to what we have to say because we truly do believe that we have some kind
of answer.” In sum, the technology team’s messaging of individualized support and willingness
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 124
to serve teachers has contributed to teachers’ positive views about technology focused
professional development training.
Data Analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 16 assessed the degree to which teacher feel positive about
technology focused professional development. This influence was determined to be an asset due
to teacher survey data and technology team interview responses. A total of 87.1% of respondents
agreed or definitely agreed with the following statement: I feel positive about technology
focused professional development trainings. The educational technologists interviewed
substantiated factors which may contribute to a positive view of technology focused training
such as a fun atmosphere that is individualized and reconnects students with former teachers.
Moreover, the overall message that the technology team is knowledgeable and able to serve
teachers also supports a positive perspective of trainings. Therefore, this influence was
determined to be an asset.
Influence 17. Teachers feel positive about using technology in their classrooms.
This influence was assessed through teacher survey data, document analysis, and observations.
Survey results. Ninety-four respondents selected their level of agreement for the
following statement: I feel positive about using technology in my classroom with students.
While 57.4% of respondents agreed with this statement, an additional 35.1% definitely agreed.
A combined 7.4% either disagreed or definitely disagreed. The survey results show teachers
possess a positive perspective about using technology in their classrooms. Table 28 shows the
survey question with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 125
Table 28.
Motivation: Mood Influence 17: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I feel positive about using technology in my classroom
with students.
Definitely disagree 2 2.1%
Disagree 5 5.3%
Agree 54 57.4%
Definitely agree 33 35.1%
Interviews.
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology Team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Data Analysis. Work samples and teacher lesson plans demonstrate teachers feel
positive about using technology in their classrooms with students. A variety of technological
applications such as the Google Suite, websites, and other educational applications were used to
produce student work. For instance, the Read, Write, Think application supported primary
students in producing Haiku poems. Additionally, Google Drawings allowed students to create
graphic organizers. Lastly, a Google application was used to create secondary science lesson
plans and embed additional informational links for students. Lesson topics included the scientific
method and mitosis. Overall, collected documents demonstrate teachers are using varied
technological tools with students.
Observations. Six observations were conducted for this influence at both elementary and
secondary grade levels. All observations embedded technology throughout the duration of the
lesson and was used to promote student collaboration, discussion, and teacher feedback. For
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 126
example, a lesson incorporating Google Slides with ancient Egyptian history not only practiced
student presentation skills, but also allowed for student collaboration on slide content based on
key historical facts. In another example, junior high students used Google Docs to collaborate
on a group project about Colonial America. Thus, the ways in which teachers were observed to
integrate technology into their lessons substantiates evidence for the influence that teachers feel
positive about using technology within their classrooms.
Summary. Influence 17 assessed whether teachers feel positive about using technology
in their classrooms. This influence was determined to be an asset due to teacher survey data,
document analysis, and observations. When asked if teachers feel positive about using
technology in their classrooms with students, 57.4% of respondents agreed and 35.1% of
students definitely agreed. The vast majority of respondents had a favorable response to this
survey question. Furthermore, both document analysis and observations demonstrate teachers
are using varied technological resources with students in the classroom such as: Google
applications, interactive websites, and data/testing platforms as well as to plan lessons. This
demonstrates teachers positively interact with technology as a way to deliver instructional
content to students. Therefore, this influence was determined to be an asset.
Motivation: Attribution
A combination of survey data and document analysis were used to assess teachers’ attribution as
it relates to technology integration.
Influence 18. Teachers attribute their success and failures in integrating technology
in their content lessons to their own efforts. This influence was assessed through teacher
survey data and document analysis.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 127
Survey results. Ninety-four teachers selected their level of agreement for the following
statement: My success with technology integration into my lessons is due to my own efforts.
While 66% of respondents agreed with this statement, 10.6% of teachers definitely agreed. Only
2.1% definitely disagreed, but 21.3% disagreed with the statement. However, generally survey
results showed a strong majority for agreement with the statement. Table 29 shows the survey
question with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 29.
Motivation: Attribution Influence 18: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
My success with technology integration into my lessons
is due to my own efforts.
Definitely disagree 2 2.1%
Disagree 20 21.3%
Agree 62 66%
Definitely agree 10 10.6%
Interviews.
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology Team. Five technology team members were asked the following question: In
what ways do you believe some teachers technology efforts succeed, while others fail? Risk
taking and attitude were the two main themes that emerged from participant responses.
Participant 3 explained why teachers succeed at technology implementation, while Participant 4
shared why others’ efforts are less fruitful. Participant 3 noted, “We have teachers that go all in.
I've set the lesson up, and they've reached out to us for help, which is always appreciated because
it's easier to prep for something than it is to deal with the fallout of a problem.” Participant 4
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 128
said, “I've been in technology for a long time and probably the biggest thing I've seen is the
user’s comfort level. We still have teachers on our staff that are just frankly afraid of
technology. When they try and use it in their classrooms, it's kind of predestined that there's
going to be problems because they're there. They're just afraid of it and so they're afraid to click.
They're afraid to explore.” Lastly, Participant 2 shared a perspective about teacher attitude and
how the technology team must be able to keenly support teachers’ socio-emotional well-being as
it relates to technology implementation. “We are just going to have multiple emotions. One day
a teacher could just be on fire and everything's working and the next day they just have a bad
day. So we are trying to be more open to teachers who just have bad luck with technology and
how do we support them.” It is clear from participant responses that encouragement is a key
component of the technology team’s work to ensure increased self-perception of success by
teachers.
Data Analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 18 assessed whether teachers attribute their success and failures
with integrating technology into their content lessons to their own efforts. This influence was
determined to be an asset due to teacher survey data and technology team interview responses.
Overall, 76.6% of respondents agreed and/or definitely agreed with the following statement: My
success with technology integration into my lessons is due to my own efforts. The 21.3% of
respondents who disagreed with the statement may be those teachers that are apprehensive about
risk taking and exploration of technology, like some technology team members mentioned in
their responses. Interview data showed the responsiveness and encouragement of the technology
team to further support those struggling teachers. Participant 1 stated it simply. “We just want
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 129
you to know where to click. If you don't know how to find something, just click around and
you'll find it. Because that's the biggest barrier.” In sum this influence was determined to be an
asset.
Motivation: Goal Orientation
A combination of teacher and technology team interviews were used to assess teachers’ goal
orientation as it relates to technology integration.
Influence 19. Teachers are willing to take risks and learn from their mistakes. This
influence was assessed through teacher and technology team interviews.
Survey results. No survey question was asked for this influence.
Interviews.
Teachers. Eight participants were asked to describe a way or two they have taken risks
with technology in their classrooms. The main theme from participants’ answers was
experimentation. Three teachers mentioned they are not always sure the technology will work,
but that they are willing to experiment and figure it out with their students. Participant 1 shared,
“sometimes I might try it, and then [students] might encounter a problem that I didn't encounter.
It's fine because the kids know that we're using it [for] the first time. We're trying it together and
its fine.” Additionally, a teacher shared a risk-taking example as developing a classroom website
where screen casting will be used later this school year in the classroom. Another teacher said
she is always willing to experiment with new district initiatives and online instructional support
programs. One participant mentioned personal professional development as risk-taking, while a
different teacher shared it is always a risk incorporating increased amount of technology into
instruction. As students become more independent, the concern develops whether students are
utilizing technology in a quality way. Participant 8 communicated his risk-taking as it relates to
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 130
increased technology use with instruction. “The more you use technology, the more you kind of
hand [it] over to the kids. I find there's a lot more days where I have to be quiet and step back
and just let them go. You know, there's just a risk involved in are they going to find the right
things? Are they going to use them correctly? Are they getting anything out of what we're
doing?” In sum, teachers are willing to experiment with new forms of technology coupled with
their instruction.
Technology Team. Five technology team members were asked the following question:
How do you encourage technology risk taking among teachers? Each participant’s answer
centered on a form of support for teachers. Support ranged from help in the classroom managing
students and technology to building and maintaining a strong network so teachers feel confident
in taking risks without the internet malfunctioning. Modeling, exploration, and risk taking on a
device as well as simply meeting teachers at their current knowledge and comfort levels were
also takeaways from participant interviews. Participant 2’s comment summarizes the overall
sentiment technology team members expressed regarding support. “Having [a] really attentive
staff because we can respond quickly. [Teachers are] more likely to take a risk because they
know somebody is going to be there. There is a human to run to when they need them. That's
when we've seen risk taking completely change.” Overall, when teachers feel supported both
online and in their classrooms they are more willing to engage in risk-taking as it relates to self-
regulated learning and student autonomy.
Data Analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 19 assessed whether teachers are willing to take risks and learn
from their mistakes. This influence was determined to be an asset due to both teacher and
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 131
technology team interview responses. Both stakeholders mentioned experimentation as it relates
to risk-taking. Teachers shared the ways in which they use technology with students such as
collaboration or district promoted online technology applications as well as how they are willing
to try new technology with students present, not always certain if it will work. Technology team
members discussed ways in which they support teacher experimentation during class through
real-time support, modeling for teachers as well as building and maintaining a strong network so
the probability technology will function properly increases. Overall, both teacher and
technology team members’ responses coincided to show how technological risk-taking occurs by
teachers in the classroom. Thus, this influence was determined to be an asset.
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
Organization causes were assessed by multiple means through surveys, interviews, and
document analysis. All instruments were categorized by resources, policies, processes, and
procedures as well as cultural factors. Results were analyzed to authenticate XYZ School
District’s promising practices of integrating high technology use to promote high student
achievement.
Organization: Resources
A combination of survey data and interviews were used to assess district resources as it relates to
technology usage by teachers.
Influence 20. Teachers have regular access to educational technology team members
with whom they may consult regarding implementation issues or innovative strategies they
aim to experiment with in their classrooms. This influence was assessed through survey data
and technology team interviews.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 132
Survey results. Ninety-four respondents provided data regarding how often they interact
with educational team members in a given month. The majority of respondents, 55.3%, selected
one to three times a month, while 27.7% of teachers chose four to six times per month.
Approximately 8.5% of respondents stated they interact with educational technology team
members more than six times in a month. Conversely, 8.5% of teachers noted they did not seek
out any educational technology team member assistance. The survey data suggests teachers
perceive interaction with educational technology team members to be useful as 91.5% initiate
contact with a team member at least once a month. Table 30 shows the survey question with the
response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 30.
Organization: Resources Influence 20: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
How often do you interact with educational technology
team members in a given month?
Not at all 8 8.5%
1-3 times 52 55.3%
4-6 times 26 27.7%
More than 6 times 8 8.5%
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 133
Interviews.
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology Team. Both district educational technologists were asked how often they
meet with teachers to discuss technology. The technologist responsible for all three elementary
sites also works at the junior high and explained how maintaining visibility in the teachers’
lounge is most effective in promoting teacher interaction. “That is the best place to be. People
expect me on certain days, but also that's where they can decompress from the classroom, come
up and say, ‘[I’ve] got this question for you.’ I don't have regular meetings with certain
teachers.” However, the educational technologist representing the high school and who also
shares the junior high site, maintains regular hours for teachers and stated appointments are
arranged well in advance by teachers, half of those meetings being individualized sessions.
“When I'm on campus, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, I am booked days or weeks in
advance, all day every day from 7:30 to 4:30pm.” While both educational technologists assume
differing approaches in the ways they structure their interaction with teachers, it is evident
teachers seek out their support on a monthly basis.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 20 assessed whether teachers have regular access to educational
technology team members with whom they may consult regarding implementation issues or
innovative strategies they aim to experiment with in their classrooms. This influence was
determined to be an asset due to teacher survey data and technology team interview responses.
Approximately 91.5% of respondents have at least one interaction with an educational
technologist per month. Additionally, both educational technologists detailed their
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 134
individualized approaches to promote teacher interaction. Therefore, this influence was
determined to be an asset.
Influence 21. There is one to one access for all students so that teachers have
sufficient devices to facilitate lessons using technology. This influence was assessed through
survey data, technology team interviews, and document analysis.
Survey results. Ninety-four respondents selected their level of agreement for the
following statement: There are sufficient devices available to students in order to facilitate
lessons with technology. While 52.1% of respondents agreed with this statement, 35.1%
definitely agreed. Conversely, 9.6% of respondents disagreed with the statement and 3.2%
definitely disagreed. Overall, a strong majority of teachers had a favorable view of device
availability among students. Table 31 shows the survey question with the response count and
percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 31.
Organization: Resources Influence 21: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
There are sufficient devices available to students in
order to facilitate lessons with technology.
Definitely disagree 3 3.2%
Disagree 9 9.6%
Agree 49 52.1%
Strongly Agree 33 35.1%
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 135
Interviews.
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology Team. Six technology team members were asked to describe how device
access affects teachers’ frequency of technology use. All six participants, both educational
technologists and informational technologists, referenced an increase in technology integration
by teachers due to the accessibility of the devices. Participant 2 explained the device
introduction from a historical perspective.
“[We put] devices in the classroom in fifth and seventh grades to start, and we studied
that to see what happened. The world changed in those classrooms. We put a few extras
in the classrooms for the teachers to have in case kids forgot them at home. Then we had
carts for the younger grades and what we saw happen was without our intervention. The
teachers all wanted their own sets and so the sites figured out ways to make this happen.
That was completely organic and it wasn't us leading it. That was the teachers wanting it
and I think that made the difference.”
Another theme from participant responses was teachers had the ability to do more and
faster with one to one student device access. Participant 5 shared, “The fact that now
Chromebooks live in the room, and every student has access to one and they don't have to share.
I do think that gives teachers more incentive to do more with technology because they're not
having to wait until the Chromebooks are available.” Participant 6 also touched on the idea of
access. “When kids have devices, the teachers are more willing to do technology in their
classroom because they don't have the worry where the technology is going to come from. It's in
front of them. The devices themselves matter.” In sum, one to one student device access
increased technology usage by teachers in classrooms throughout the district.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 136
Document analysis. The district Technology Plan 2019-2022 highlights the current
number of devices, housed within the district. District-wide there are 30 Desktop PCs, 800
Chromebooks and 120 iPads. Additionally, according to the Technology Plan, there are
currently 2,437 student-owned Chromebooks and 328 equity devices, or about 12% of
Chromebooks provided for student use by the district. Thus, data comprised in this document
supports one to one student access as well as sufficient teacher access to facilitate
technologically integrated lessons.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 21 assessed whether there is one to one access for all students so
that teachers have sufficient devices to facilitate lessons using technology. This influence was
determined to be an asset based on teacher survey data, technology team interviews, and
document analysis. Survey data showed a total of 87.2% of respondents agreed with the
following statement: There are sufficient devices available to students in order to facilitate
lessons with technology. Moreover, technology team members stated the one to one device
accessed increased teachers’ technology integration into their content lessons. The district
technology plan further substantiates this influence by providing device totals by type. Thus, this
influence was determined to be an asset.
Organization: Policies, Processes, & Procedures
A combination of survey data, interviews, and document analysis were used to assess district
resources as it relates to policies, processes and procedures for technology use.
Influence 22. Policies outlined in the district’s technology implementation plan align
with year-round, differentiated professional development resources for teachers. This
influence was assessed through survey data and document analysis.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 137
Survey results. Ninety-three respondents selected a level of agreement for the following
statement: District technology policies are well aligned with differentiated professional
development resources for teachers. Approximately 75% of respondents agreed with the
statement and 13.9% definitely agreed. However, 9.7% of respondents disagreed and 1.1%
definitely disagreed. Overall, the majority of respondents, 89.2%, held a favorable perspective
that district technology policies are well aligned with differentiated professional development
resources for teachers. Table 32 shows the survey question with the response count and
percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 32.
Organization: Policies, processes & procedures Influence 22: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 93
Count Percentage of
Respondents
District technology policies are well aligned with
differentiated professional development resources for
teachers.
Definitely disagree 1 1.1%
Disagree 9 9.7%
Agree 70 75.3%
Definitely Agree 13 13.9%
Interviews.
Teachers. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Technology team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. Goals 1, 2, 4, 3, and 6 of the district technology plan address
professional development opportunities and resources directly impacting teachers. Goal 1
addresses teaching and the development and implementation of design thinking lessons as well
as assessment of the current Chromebook program to learn improvement areas and plan next
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 138
steps. Goal 2 centers on learning and enabling all stakeholders to develop and hone their
technology skills. In this section a teacher innovator camp experience is also listed as a
professional development opportunity. Goal 3 focuses on infrastructure and continual expansion
and strengthening of the network to increase reliability for users. Additionally, Goal 4 addresses
assessment and the development of alternative assessment practices such as student work
portfolios. Training related to grading and assessment systems was mentioned for teachers.
Lastly, Goal 6 addresses ongoing professional development for teachers in the form of
presentations at conferences. Overall, the technology plan refers to various professional
development opportunities and resources for teachers.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 22 assessed whether policies outlined in the district’s technology
implementation plan align with year round, differentiated professional development resources for
teachers. This influence was determined to be an asset based on teacher survey data and
document analysis. A total of 89.2% of teachers were in agreement with the following
statement: District technology policies are well aligned with differentiated professional
development resources for teachers. Furthermore, analysis of the district technology plan
outlined multiple opportunities for professional development training for which teachers may
engage such as design thinking training, a teacher innovator camp, and presentations of best
practices at relevant conferences. Thus, this influence was determined to be an asset.
Influence 23. District procedures align with targeted use of devices for instructional
purposes and common assessments. This influence was assessed through teacher survey data
and teacher interviews.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 139
Survey results. Ninety-two participants responded to both survey questions which
assessed this influence. The first survey question asked respondents to choose their level of
agreement with the following statement: District procedures are well aligned with device usage
for classroom instruction. Seventy five percent of respondents agreed with the statement, while
16.3% definitely agreed. There were no respondents that definitely disagreed with the statement,
but 8.7% of teachers did disagree. Overall, 91.3% of respondents expressed positive agreement
with the statement that district procedures are well aligned with device usage for classroom
instruction. Table 33 shows the survey question with the response count and percentages of
teachers for this influence.
The second survey question used to assess this influence asked for respondents’ level of
agreement to the following statement: District procedures are well aligned with device usage for
common assessments. While 65.2% agreed with this statement, 17.4% definitely agreed.
Approximately 17% of respondents disagreed with the statement; however, no respondents
definitely disagreed. In sum, a strong majority of respondents find district procedures to be well
aligned with both classroom instruction and common assessments. Tables 33 and 34 show the
survey questions with the response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 140
Table 33.
Organization: Policies, processes & procedures Influence 23: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 92
Count Percentage of
Respondents
District procedures are well aligned with device usage
for classroom instruction.
Definitely disagree 0 0%
Disagree 8 8.7%
Agree 69 75%
Definitely Agree 15 16.3%
Table 34.
Organization: Policies, processes & procedures Influence 23: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 92
Count Percentage of
Respondents
District procedures are well aligned with device usage
for common assessments.
Definitely disagree 0 0%
Disagree 16 17.4%
Agree 60 65.2%
Definitely Agree 16 17.4%
Interviews.
Teachers. Eight participants were asked the following question: How do you feel district
technology policies affect your device usage for common assessments and instruction?
Participants offered a variety of responses to this question. For example, four participants
mentioned the network’s filters and how this supports students’ safety without hindering
teachers’ ability to access content related to lessons. Other participants discussed how district
policies and practices positively affect teaching. Increased student Chromebook access and
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 141
support from the technology team were shared as key aspects that have assisted teachers in
technology integration. Participant 3 shared, “We are one to one with Chromebooks in third
grade. That didn't used to be the case. That used to be a big struggle because I didn't have enough
for the class. Now that we're one to one, it's great.” Two teachers did mention in their responses
that they are not using technology to administer common assessments. Participant 3, an
elementary teacher, explains, “I haven't been using Chromebooks for common assessments yet. I
just feel like especially at this point in the year, the kids rush if they're taking a test online versus
if they have paper and pencil in front of them.” This appears to be an area of growth. Overall,
however, participants provided insight regarding different policies and their instructional impact.
Technology team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 23 assessed whether district procedures align with targeted use of
devices for instructional purposes and common assessments. Survey data showed a total of
91.3% of teachers were in agreement with the following statement: District procedures are well
aligned with device usage for classroom instruction. Similarly, overall 82.6% of respondents
agreed with the following statement: District procedures are well aligned with device usage for
common assessments. Generally, teachers referenced district policies that are supportive
instructionally such as network filters and student Chromebook access. Common assessment
administration via technology appears to be a growth area according to interview participants.
Overall, however, it is evident district procedures align with targeted use of devices for
instructional purposes. Thus, this influence was determined to be an asset.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 142
Organization: Culture
A combination of survey data and interviews were used to assess district resources as it relates to
the organizational culture of technology use.
Influence 24. Overall, teachers perceive there is a culture of continuous learning
through professional development to deliver consistent technology infused lessons. This
influence was assessed through teacher survey data and teacher interviews.
Survey results. Ninety-four respondents answered both survey questions. The first
survey question asked teachers to assess their level of agreement for the following statement:
There is a district-wide culture of continuous learning about technology. Sixty-seven percent of
respondents agreed with the statement and 25.5% definitely agreed. There were no teachers that
definitely disagreed and 7.5% of respondents disagreed with the statement.
The second survey question for this influence asked respondents their level of agreement
for the following statement: Professional development training provided by the technology team
supports continuous learning about technology. Overall, 91.4% of teachers responded favorably:
60.6% agreed and 30.8% definitely agreed. However, 7.5% of respondents disagreed, while
1.1% of teachers definitely disagreed. Thus, survey data demonstrates teachers perceive there is
a district-wide culture of continuous learning about technology and professional development
training supports this ongoing learning. Tables 35 and 36 show the survey questions with the
response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 143
Table 35.
Organization: Culture Influence 24: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
There is a district-wide culture of continuous learning
about technology.
Definitely disagree 0 0%
Disagree 7 7.5%
Agree 63 67%
Strongly Agree 24 25.5%
Table 36.
Organization: Culture Influence 24: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
Professional development training provided by the
technology team supports continuous learning about
technology.
Definitely disagree 1 1.1%
Disagree 7 7.5%
Agree 57 60.6%
Strongly Agree 29 30.8%
Interviews.
Teachers. Eight participants were asked to provide a couple of examples how they
regularly advance/update their learning about technology. District trainings and certifications,
colleagues, and outside professional development opportunities summarized participants’
responses. While one teacher aspires to acceptance into the Google Innovator program, another
teacher frequents content specific science training at a local university. Other participants
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 144
mentioned colleagues both within and outside the school district, like Twitter, as ways to connect
regarding technology and learn about new applications and updates. Lastly, teachers mentioned
the benefits of district offered technology training. Participant 5 shared, “Every summer for the
past few years, whichever trainings they have offered like certifications, I have kept current”
Additionally, Participant 6 discussed past experiences and personal goals regarding certification
training provided by the district. “Last year I did the Cue Conference and training over summer,
which was called Ed Craft. You had to come up with a new [classroom] protocol. I'm Google
one certified. I want to be Google Two by the end of this year.” Therefore, teachers seek various
outlets in the ways they update and advance their learning about technology.
Technology Team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Data Analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Summary. Influence 24 assessed whether teachers perceive there is a culture of
continuous learning through professional development to deliver consistent technology infused
lessons. This influence was determined to be an asset based on teacher survey data and teacher
interviews. Over 92% of respondents agreed there is a district-wide culture of continuous
learning about technology. Similarly, 91.4% of respondents agreed professional development
training provided by the technology team supports continuous learning about technology.
Teacher interviews further substantiated the aforementioned survey data as participants
mentioned conversations with colleagues and technology team members as well as district
professional training as ways they regularly update their technological learning. Furthermore,
the desire for teachers to seek out professional development trainings on their own demonstrates
a culture of continuous learning. Thus, this influence was determined to be an asset.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 145
Influence 25. Teachers feel supported and safe in taking technological risks within
their classrooms. This influence was assessed through teacher survey data and teacher
interviews.
Survey results. Ninety-four respondents chose their level of agreement for the following
statement: I feel supported when taking technological risks in my classroom. Over 53% of
teachers agreed with the statement and an additional 36.2% definitely agreed. No respondents
definitely disagreed, but 10.6% did disagree. In sum, 89.4% of teachers feel supported when
taking technological risks in their classrooms. Table 37 show the survey questions with the
response count and percentages of teachers for this influence.
Table 37.
Organization: Culture Influence 25: Teacher Survey
Response
n = 94
Count Percentage of
Respondents
I feel supported when taking technological risks in my
classroom.
Definitely disagree 0 0%
Disagree 10 10.6%
Agree 50 53.2%
Definitely agree 34 36.2%
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 146
Interviews.
Teachers. Eight participants were asked the following question: What makes you feel
supported when experimenting with technology? Six teachers stated the ability to access
immediate support. While five teachers directly referenced the technology team, one teacher
mentioned her site principal, who previously was also a technology team member. Participant 4
shared the responsiveness of the technology team when they are alerted to a problem. “I have a
glitch in one lab all the time. When I know I'm going in there I put [in] a help ticket. There is
someone up there if not before [then] as the students arrive. It’s fixed instantaneously.”
Another theme which emerged from participants’ responses was although they may
experiment and experience a technological failure within their classrooms. Participant 5 shared,
“I've never felt like I couldn't do something. If I have an idea, I bring it and [the technology
team] can help me implement it.” In sum, support and encouragement, which is offered free of
judgement, helps teachers feel supported when experimenting with technology.
Technology team. No interviews were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Observations. No observations were conducted for this influence
Summary. Influence 25 assessed whether teachers feel supported and safe in taking
technological risks within their classrooms. This influence was determined to be an asset based
on teacher survey data and teacher interviews. Overall, 89.4% of respondents agreed or
definitely agreed with the statement: I feel supported when taking technological risks in my
classroom. Additionally, teachers shared they are willing to experiment with technology in the
classrooms due to the high level of support and responsiveness they receive from the technology
team. Participant 5 summarized the relationship multiple teachers have forged with the
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 147
technology team. “They encourage teachers that want to innovate, want to try things, and want to
take risks to go ahead and do it because they know that we've been trained. They honor our
passion and our professionalism.” Thus, this influence was determined to be an asset.
Summary of Validated Influences
Knowledge
A total of 12 influences were analyzed in the knowledge section. Teacher survey data,
both teacher and technology team interviews as well as observations and analysis of documents,
including teacher lesson plans and student work samples, were used to determine confirmation of
promising practices. Table 38 summarizes the outcome of each assessed knowledge influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 148
Table 38.
Assumed Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influences Asset or
Need?
Declarative Factual
Influence 1. Teachers know where to find district professional development
opportunities.
Influence 2. Teachers know who to contact from the district technology team
regarding differentiated support or implementation of a new technological
practice within their classrooms.
Influence 3. Teachers know the technological tools, both hardware and
software that are appropriate for instructional use in their classrooms.
Influence 4. Teachers know their content standards that are best taught with
technology.
Asset
Asset
Asset
Asset
Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 5. Teachers compare various technological tools to determine which
is most appropriate in achieving their instructional goal(s).
Influence 6. Teachers are able to generalize models and structures learned
from professional development.
Influence 7. Teachers understand how different technological tools support
different content delivery.
Asset
Asset
Asset
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 8. Teachers know when to apply skills learned from professional
development sessions.
Influence 9. Teachers know how to integrate instructional and technological
skills and knowledge.
Asset
Asset
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 10. Teachers reflect on personal gaps in knowledge and skills,
Asset
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 149
knowing when to seek out professional development support.
Influence 11. Teachers self-assess their classroom instruction and adjust
instructional strategies as needed.
Asset
Chapter Five will address ways in which to sustain promising practices.
Motivation
Eight influences were assessed in the motivation section. Teacher survey data, both
teacher and technology team interviews as well as observations and analysis of documents,
including teacher lesson plans and student work samples, were used to substantiate promising
practices. Table 39 summarizes the outcome of each assessed motivation influence.
Table 39.
Assumed Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation Influences Asset or
Need?
Value
Influence 12. Teachers value professional training opportunities to hone
instructional strategies in conjunction with technology within their classrooms.
Influence 13. Teachers value technology integration to support student
acquisition of content knowledge.
Asset
Asset
Self-efficacy
Influence 14. Teachers are confident they can transfer their learning from
professional development into the classroom.
Influence 15. Teachers are confident they can implement technology into
content lessons.
Asset
Asset
Mood
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 150
Influence 16. Teachers feel positive about professional development.
Influence 17. Teachers feel positive about using technology in their
classrooms.
Asset
Asset
Attribution
Influence 18. Teachers attribute their success and failures in integrating
technology in their content lessons to their own efforts.
Asset
Goal Orientation
Influence 19. Teachers are willing to take risks and learn from their mistakes.
Asset
Chapter 5 will address ways in which to sustain promising practices.
Organization
Six influences were assessed in the organizational section. Teacher survey data, both
teacher and technology team interviews as well as analysis of documents, including the district
technology plan, were used to demonstrate promising practices. Table 40 summarizes the
outcome of each assessed organizational influence.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 151
Table 40.
Assumed Organizational Influences
Assumed Organizational Influences Asset or
Need?
Resources
Influence 20. Teachers have regular access to educational technology team
members with whom they may consult regarding implementation issues or
innovative strategies they aim to experiment with in their classrooms.
Influence 21. There is one to one access for all students so that teachers have
sufficient devices to facilitate lessons using technology.
Asset
Asset
Policies, Processes, & Procedures
Influence 22. Policies outlined in the district’s technology implementation plan
align with year-round differentiated professional development resources for
teachers.
Influence 23. District procedures align with targeted use of devices for
instructional purposes and common assessments.
Asset
Asset
Culture
Influence 24. Overall, teachers perceive there is a culture of continuous
learning through professional development to deliver consistent technology
infused lessons.
Influence 25. Teachers feel supported and safe in taking technological risks
within their classrooms.
Asset
Asset
Chapter Five will present recommendations based on findings assessed in Chapter Four.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 152
Chapter 5: Recommendations and Evaluation
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to study XYZ School District’s organizational performance
as it relates to high technology integration district-wide and overall high student achievement.
This study focuses on two stakeholders: K-12 teachers and district technology team members.
Analysis is performed on influences in the areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational resources to determine each influence as an asset or need.
The questions that will guide this gap analysis address the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational causes that support
high student achievement as it relates to high technology integration?
2. What knowledge, motivation, and organizational assets does the district technology team
possess that has contributed to the organization continually expanding district technology
opportunities, while also sustaining high student achievement?
3. What solutions and recommendations in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem of practice at
another school district?
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction
This component of Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model is comprised of the
following knowledge types: declarative, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. In Chapter
Four a total of eleven knowledge influences were assessed through data collection and analysis
which included a teacher survey, teacher and technology team member interviews, classroom
observations, and document analysis. After conducting an analysis of the aforementioned data,
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 153
one validated influence from each knowledge type was determined high priority in order to
maintain XYZ School District’s high student achievement through consistent and high quality
technology implementation. Identification of validated high priority knowledge influences may
also support other school districts in solving related problems of practice. Table 41 outlines the
assumed knowledge influence, priority level, principle, and context-specific recommendation.
Following the table, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause as well as the supporting
literature and recommendations are provided.
Table 41.
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Declarative Factual
Teachers know their content
standards that are best taught
with technology,
High
Continued practice
promotes automaticity
and takes less capacity in
working memory
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).
Provide opportunities
for teachers to
practice aligning
content standards to a
technology type.
Provide worked
examples of sample
content standards and
technology types.
Conceptual
Teachers are able to
generalize models and
structures learned from
professional development.
High
To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating them,
and know when to apply
what they have learned
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006)
Provide teachers
practice in selecting,
organizing, and
integrating technology
types into their
content standards.
Model effective
methods in how and
when to select
technology types for
specific content
standards.
Procedural
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 154
Teachers know how to
integrate instructional and
technological skills and
knowledge.
High
To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating them,
and know when to apply
what they have learned
(Schraw &McCrudden,
2006).
Offer guidance to
teachers through
coaching sessions or
real-time modeling in
their classrooms with
students.
Provide teachers tasks
that promote
selecting, organizing,
and integrating
learning into their
teaching.
Allow opportunities
for teachers to
practice skills from
professional
development training
sessions for transfer to
their classrooms.
Metacognitive
Teachers reflect on personal
gaps in knowledge and skills,
knowing when to seek out
professional development
support.
High
Ask learners to think
aloud: have them talk
about what they are
doing as they solve a
problem or read a text
(Baker, 2006).
Provide opportunities
for teachers to debrief
the thinking process
upon completion of
the learning task and
identify necessary
support.
Declarative knowledge solutions. Influence 4 states teachers know their content
standards that are best taught with technology. According to Schraw & McCrudden (2006),
continued practice promotes automaticity and takes less working memory capacity. Teacher
survey data, technology team interviews, and classroom observations validated the influence and
indicates teachers know how to pair content standards with technology type. Additional
recommendations to promote technology and content standards alignment include opportunities
for teachers to practice pairing content standards to a technology type as well as referencing
worked examples of sample content standards and technology types.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 155
Research states while technological tools may increase interest among learners, strong
instructional methods work across media. According to Mayer (2003), problem solving and
transfer tests must assess whether technology integration into one’s content area is meaningful
by providing authentic learning situations for students. Moreover, Clark, Yates, Early, &
Moulton (2010) state all media types must integrate situational based problems, worked
examples, scaffolding, and regular feedback in order to ensure optimal student learning. Ward
and Sweller (1990) found the most effective worked examples integrate pertinent information
into one document and does not require learners to split their attention among various sources.
In sum, teachers must carefully select technology types to accompany their content standards.
Conceptual knowledge solutions. Influence 6 states teachers are able to generalize
models and structures learned from professional development. According to Schraw &
McCrudden (2006), supporting individuals in connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge
will result in newly constructed meaning. Furthermore, Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) define
conceptual knowledge as a way experts think about a discipline. Thus, for this influence, which
was validated by teacher survey data and technology team interviews, teachers are able to
categorize and classify strategies presented during professional development training sessions
that directly relate to their content area and classroom of learners. One recommendation to
further support teachers in generalizing models and structures from professional development
include teacher opportunities for practice in selecting, organizing, and integrating technology
types into their content standards. Another recommendation is to model effective methods in
how and when to select technology types for specific content standards.
Kopcha (2012) details four stages of technology implementation: initial set-up, teacher
preparation, curricular focus, and community of practice. The teacher mentor plays a critical role
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 156
at each juncture. Stage two specifically addresses modeling and support in the form of practice
tasks with technology. Similarly, this stage also describes providing leadership as needed to
assist teachers in integrating technology into their content area. Ertmer (2005) describes
modeling as vicarious experiences that afford teachers useful information about how to utilize
specific classroom strategies. Observation of modeling also increases one’s confidence in
performing similar tasks since the teacher experiences success. Additionally, modeling provides
teachers’ an exemplar for effective teaching and the potential to initiate teachers’ perceived need
for change if necessary. Overall, modeling and opportunities for practice support teacher’s
generalization of strategies and structures from professional development trainings to their
individual classrooms.
Procedural knowledge solutions. Influence 9 states teachers know how to integrate
instructional and technological skills and knowledge. According to Schraw & McCrudden,
(2006) mastery is developed when individuals acquire component skills, practice utilizing them,
and know when to apply what they have learned. This influence was validated through teacher
survey data and observations. A recommendation for teachers to successfully integrate
technological skills and knowledge with one’s instruction is to offer guidance to teachers through
coaching sessions or real-time modeling in their classrooms with students. Another
recommendation is to provide teachers tasks that promote selecting, organizing, and integrating
learning into their teaching. A third recommendation is to allow opportunities for teachers to
practice skills from professional development training sessions for transfer to their classrooms.
Research supports targeted cognitive processes to promote learning, guidance, modeling
and ample practice as effective ways to integrate pedagogy and technology. According to Mayer
(2011), important learning occurs when learners engage in three processes: selecting, organizing
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 157
and integrating. The selecting component requires learners to acquire relevant informational
context from a lesson such as facts and vocabulary. Learning objectives, questions, and
highlighting key terminology are part of this process. Organizing helps the learner retain key
information as a means to ultimately achieve transfer. Mayer (2011) suggests outlines, headings,
and graphic organizers support in organizing one’s learning. Integrating helps the learner
connect new information with prior knowledge and is effectively accomplished through concrete
advanced organizers or models. After an individual has obtained new knowledge, regular
practice allows for less concentrated attention on a specified task and eventually leads to
automaticity, which provides increased resources for the memory to apply to other tasks (Feldon,
2006). A study conducted by Franklin et al., (2001) paired teachers with educational doctoral
students as mentors and exemplifies the significance of coaching and real-time practice. The
mentoring structure not only supported teachers with content area specific instructional
strategies, but also utilized modeling to assist teachers in redesigning lessons to increase their use
of technology. In sum, acquisition of knowledge and skills, practice, and application are
essential elements to successful technology implementation.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions. Influence 10 states teachers reflect on personal
gaps in knowledge and skills, knowing when to seek professional development support.
According to Baker (2006), metacognition is enhanced when learners are encouraged to think
aloud and discuss what they are doing as they work through a problem or make sense of
information. This influence was validated through teacher survey data as well as teacher and
technology team member interviews. A recommendation to increase personal reflection for one’s
gaps in knowledge and skills is to create opportunities for teachers to debrief their thinking
process after completing a learning task and identify necessary support.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 158
Lin, Schwartz, and Hatano (2005) authored a metacognitive process called The Learning
Cycle for the Critical Event-Based Instructional Learning Environment, or CEBLE. The cycle is
comprised of the following parts: meet the event, generate responses to questions, listen to
multiple perspectives, generate solutions, and reflect on the effectiveness of one’s solutions and
share outcomes. Thus, CEBLE supports personal reflection and discourse with colleagues.
Similarly, a study by Prytula (2012), noted Professional Learning Communities also promote
teacher self-reflection, problem solving, and discussion among peers. Prytula describes the need
to move learning “inside-out” as a way for teachers to share their thinking with others.
Therefore, learning is strengthened through self-reflection and peer discussion.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction
According to Clark and Estes (2008), the motivation component of the GAP Analysis
Process is comprised of value, self-efficacy, mood, attribution and goal orientation. A total of
seven motivation influences were assessed through data collection and analysis, which included
a teacher survey, district K-12 teacher as well as technology team member interviews, classroom
observations, and document analysis. After conducting an analysis of the aforementioned data,
one validated influence from each motivation type was determined to be a high priority in
maintaining XYZ School District’s high student achievement through consistent and high quality
technology implementation. Identification of validated high priority motivation influences may
also support other school districts in solving related problems of practice. Table 42 outlines the
assumed motivation influence, priority level, principle, and context-specific recommendation(s).
Following the table, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause as well as the supporting
literature and recommendations are provided
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 159
Table 42.
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Value
Teachers value technology
integration to support student
acquisition of content
knowledge.
High
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the task
(Eccles, 2006).
Provide materials and
activities useful to
teachers and connected
to their specific content
areas real-world tasks.
Self-Efficacy
Teachers are confident they
can transfer their learning
from professional
development into the
classroom.
High
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for
success (Pajares,
2006).
Demonstrate to teachers
how learning from
training will be useful in
people’s lives.
Provide teachers
instructional support
through various
opportunities for practice
and gradually remove
support to build
confidence.
Afford teachers
opportunities to observe
a credible, model using
technology that is
valuable to them.
Mood
Teachers feel positive about
professional development.
High
Positive emotional
environments support
motivation (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Support teachers’ need
for autonomy and choice.
Attribution
Teachers attribute their
success and failures in
integrating technology in
their content lessons to their
own efforts.
High
Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
individuals attribute
success or failure to
effort rather than
ability. (Anderman &
Anderman, 2009).
Provide feedback to
teachers focused on
learning as well as effort
and instructional
strategies.
Offer teachers choice and
the ability to exercise
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 160
some control in the way
they implement
technology within their
content areas.
Build supportive and
caring personal
relationships between
teachers and technology
team members.
Goal Orientation
Teachers are willing to take
risks and learn from their
mistakes.
High
Designing learning
tasks that are novel,
varied, diverse,
interesting, and
reasonably
challenging promotes
mastery orientation
(Yough & Anderman,
2006).
Create a community of
supportive learners
where everyone
encourages each other’s
ability to learn
The technology team
makes it safe to take
risks.
Value solutions. Influence 13 states teachers value technology integration to support
student acquisition of content knowledge. According to Eccles (2006), learning and motivation
are enhanced if the learner values the task. Both teacher survey data and teacher interviews
validated this influence and indicate teachers’ associate value with technology use if it supports
the delivery of content area information. To enhance teacher value as it relates to technology
integration, it is recommended that materials and activities provided to teachers are deemed
useful by teachers as well as directly connected to the users' specific content areas through real
world application.
Research (Baylor & Ritchie, 2002; Ertmer, 2005) supports peer collaboration, a
constructivist teaching approach, and openness to risk-taking as a means to support teachers’
value for technology integration. Ertmer (2005) suggests starting with a simple use for a
technological tool and building towards more complex instructional goals to increase value for
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 161
technology as a tool within the classroom. Similarly, vicarious experiences, or the observation
of peers applying technology to real-world situations, was also noted as a positive motivational
indicator. Moreover, research by Baylor and Ritchie (2002) indicates teacher openness to change
and willingness to take risks also aided in cultivating value for technology integration.
Furthermore, a mixed methods study investigating teacher beliefs and their use of technology in
low income K-8 rural schools demonstrated teachers’ learning beliefs such as student-centered
teaching strategies was connected to their level of technology integration. Thus, content
knowledge, collaboration, and a readiness to innovate supported teacher value for technology
integration.
Self-efficacy solutions. Influence 14 states teachers are confident they can transfer their
learning from professional development to the classroom. Bandura (2006) defines self-efficacy
as a perceived capability in achieving a task or outcome, which must be expressed as “can do”
rather than “will do.” According to Pajares (2006), learning and motivation are enhanced when
learners have positive expectancies for success. This influence was validated through teacher
survey data and observations. One recommendation to build additional teacher confidence for
professional development transfer to the classroom is to demonstrate to teachers how learning
from training will be useful in people’s lives. Another recommendation is to provide teachers
instructional support through various opportunities for practice and then gradually remove
support to build confidence. A third recommendation is to offer teachers opportunities to
observe a credible model using technology that is valuable to them.
Opportunities to observe successful models of technology integration as well as the
ability to engage in peer collaboration and goal setting has shown to enhance teachers’ self-
efficacy for technology integration. According to Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) exposure
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 162
to personal experiences with technology integration is the most effective way to assist teachers in
achieving mastery related to technology use and to also increase user confidence. Other ways to
encourage self-efficacy among teachers include time for technological tool experimentation, peer
collaboration, access to models, and professional development training. Wang, Ertmer, &
Newby (2004) found vicarious experiences and goal setting to further positively influence self-
efficacy among teachers. A quantitative study of 280 participants enrolled in an introductory
educational technology course examined pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding
technology integration. Participants were assigned to one of four groups, three experimental and
one control, to study vicarious experiences and goal setting. Participants completed both pre- and
post-surveys. While results showed enhanced self-efficacy for technology use when either
vicarious experiences or goal setting was experienced by participants, the greatest increase in
self-efficacy was experienced by participants who engaged in vicarious experiences combined
with goal setting (Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004). Thus, observations of peers engaging in real-
world application of technology as well as increased confidence through the connection of
learning objectives with instructional strategies were valuable ways to promote self-efficacy.
Mood solutions. Influence 17 states teachers feel positive about professional
development. According to Clark & Estes (2008), positive emotional environments support
motivation. This influence was validated through teacher survey data and technology team
interviews. Support for teachers’ need for autonomy and choice is a recommendation to increase
teacher positivity for technology integration.
Positive teacher mood influences long-lasting classroom technology use. According to
Groff & Mouza (2008), teachers’ knowledge and skill level play a significant role in technology
integration. Adequate training increases teachers’ comfort level and thus positive perception for
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 163
technology use. A study by Christensen (2002) further strengthens this idea. Sixty elementary
teachers participated in needs-based technology training both beginning and during the school
year. Two elementary schools served as control groups since teachers did not receive additional
training. Results determined additional training positively influenced teachers’ mood toward
technology use in the classroom (Christensen, 2002). Therefore, teacher preparation and training
can impact teacher mood and acceptance for technology.
Attribution solutions. Influence 18 states teachers attribute their success and failures in
integrating technology in their content lessons to their own efforts. According to Anderman &
Anderman (2009), learning and motivation are enhanced when individuals attribute success or
failures to effort rather than ability. This influence was validated through teacher survey data and
document analysis. A recommendation to further increase one’s self-attribution related to
technology integration is to provide feedback to teachers focused on learning as well as effort
and instructional strategies. An additional recommendation is to offer teachers choice and the
ability to exercise some control in the way they implement technology within their content areas.
Lastly, building supportive and caring personal relationships between teachers and technology
team members is also a way to increase self-attribution among teachers.
Research shows ongoing support, both with instructional planning and real-time
classroom assistance, develops teachers’ self-attribution for technology integration. According to
Sugar (2005), a technology coach training program was successfully piloted with teachers and
provided hands on training as well as support that focused on teachers’ individualized and
differentiated technology needs. Besides skill instruction, the technologist also provided
teachers with technical support and resources as well as assumed the role of peer collaborator
offering feedback and planning suggestions (Sugar, 2005). Moreover, classroom support
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 164
provided by technology mentors or coaches as well as assistance in the development of
instructional activities and tools to scaffold lessons are vital in supporting successful technology
implementation by teachers (Plair, 2008). In sum, peer collaboration and feedback and improve
one’s perception of self-attribution as it relates to classroom technology use.
Goal orientation. Influence 19 states teachers are willing to take risks and learn from
their mistakes. According to Yough & Anderman (2006), designing learning tasks that are novel,
varied, diverse, interesting, and reasonably challenging promotes mastery orientation. This
influence was assessed through teacher and technology team interviews. Recommendations to
increase goal attribution include development of a supportive community of learners where
everyone encourages each other’s’ ability to learn and a technology team makes it safe to take
risks.
Research states openness to change and peer collaboration supports teachers’ self-
attribution of technology integration to their individual efforts. According to Baylor and Ritchie
(2002), teachers who are open to change have an increased likelihood to experiment with
innovative technological tools within their classrooms as well as in their private lives. Positive
feedback and technical support from peers and superiors are key factors in supporting one’s
openness to change and innovation through technology. Similarly, The Collaborative
Apprenticeship Model provides teacher-leader and peer-teacher roles as well as collaborative
partnerships to promote an on-site professional development model for teaching (Glazer,
Hannafin & Song, 2005). When applied to technology integration, Glazer, Hannafin & Song
(2005) found this type of peer collaboration provides community building among teachers
through an established environment of peer mentoring, internal leadership, on-site support, and
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 165
authentic learning experiences. Thus, this structure provides for a supportive community where
learning and risk-taking is encouraged.
Organizational Recommendations
Introduction. The organizational portion of Clark and Estes’ (2008) GAP Analysis Model
consists of policies, processes, and procedures, cultural models and settings as well as resources.
In Chapter Four a total of six organizational influences were assessed through data collection and
analysis which included a teacher survey, teacher and technology team interviews, and document
analysis. After conducting an analysis of the aforementioned data, one validated influence from
each organizational type was determined high priority in order to maintain XYZ School
District’s high student achievement through consistent and high quality technology
implementation. Identification of validated high priority organizational influences may also
support other school districts in solving related problems of practice. Table 43 outlines the
assumed knowledge influence, priority level, principle, and context-specific recommendation.
Following the table, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause as well as the supporting
literature and recommendations are provided.
Table 43.
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organizational
Influence
Priority
High
Low
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Resources
Teachers have regular access
to educational technology
team members with whom
they may consult regarding
implementation issues or
innovative strategies they aim
to experiment with in their
classrooms.
High
Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their job,
and that if there are
resource shortages,
then
Collaboratively
determine organizational
priorities so when
difficult decisions arise
stakeholders are prepared
and resources can be
allocated.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 166
resources are aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Policies and Procedures
District procedures align with
targeted use of devices for
instructional purposes and
common assessments.
High
Effective organizations
ensure organizational
messages, rewards,
policies and procedures
that govern the work of
the organization are
aligned and supportive
of organizational goals
and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
The organization will
conduct an informal
audit of its
policies, procedures and
messages to check for
alignment or interference
with the goals.
Culture
Teachers perceive there is a
culture of continuous learning
through professional
development to deliver
consistent technology infused
lessons.
High
Effective change
efforts use evidence-
based solutions and
adapt them, where
necessary, to the
organization’s culture
(Clark and Estes,
2008).
Ensure planning
processes are well-
established and identify
essential organizational
elements that need to be
considered in the change
process.
Articulate how evidence-
based change effort is
being adapted for the
organization.
Resources solutions. Influence 20 states teachers have regular access to educational
technology team members with whom they may consult regarding implementation issues or
innovative strategies they aim to experiment with in their classrooms. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job and if there are resource shortages, then resources
are aligned with organizational priorities. This influence was validated through teacher survey
data and technology team interviews. It was determined teachers have regular access to
educational technology team members with whom they may consult regarding implementation
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 167
issues or innovative strategies they aim to experiment with in their classrooms. To ensure
adequate organizational resources, it is recommended teams collaboratively determine
organizational priorities so when difficult decisions arise stakeholders are prepared and resources
can be allocated.
Research supports mentorship, training, and time as important resources to facilitate
technology integration among teachers. An and Reigeluth (2011) disseminated a survey to K-12
teachers inquiring about resource barriers and supports related to technology integration. Results
showed participants required organizational resources such as time for practice in one’s content
area, the opportunity to learn about additional instructional strategies and training in how to
develop technology focused lessons. Additionally, a study examining a mentoring program for
teacher candidates found mentor support not only helped teachers to build their confidence
related to technology use, but also assisted teachers with instructional planning as well as
technical challenges that occurred within the classroom (Franklin, Turner, Kariuki, & Duran,
2001). Thus, when appropriate resources are applied to mitigate barriers, teachers are able to
successfully use technology within their classrooms.
Policies and procedures solutions. Influence 23 states district procedures align with
targeted use of devices for instructional purposes and common assessments. According to Clark
and Estes (2008), effective organizations ensure organizational messages, rewards, policies, and
procedures that govern the work of the organization are aligned with and supportive of
organizational goals and values. This influence was validated through survey data as well as
teacher interviews and verified policies and procedures aligned to both classroom instruction and
common assessments. A recommendation to ensure policy and procedure alignment is for the
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 168
organization to conduct an informal audit of its policies, procedures, and messages to check for
alignment or interference with the goals.
Policies and procedures must address organizational alignment as it relates to technical
resources, human capital, training, and usage guidelines. Human infrastructure refers to
technology personnel who can support teachers with not only instructional strategies and real-
time classroom support, but also technical assistance (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002).
Additionally, staffing procedures must consider network connections, email accounts and
Internet filters. Student internet and device usage must also be considered and policies devised
for parental agreement (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). Regular review of policies and
procedures is essential to ensure alignment with organizational goals.
Cultural solutions. Influence 24 states teachers perceive there is a culture of continuous
learning through professional development to deliver consistent technology infused lessons.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective change efforts use evidence-based solutions and
adapt them, where necessary, to the organization’s culture. This influence was validated through
teacher survey data and teacher interviews. It was determined there is an organizational culture
of continual learning and this cultural model is present in professional development training.
Recommendations to utilize effective change efforts to maintain healthy organization culture
include planning processes to identify essential organizational elements that need to be
considered in the change process as well as the need to articulate how evidence-based change
effort can be adapted for the organization.
Research supports the importance of regularly reviewing organizational cultural
influences in order to make adjustments as needed. Zhao et al. (2002) noted most teachers
require a strong organizational structure with regard to adequate human infrastructure in key
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 169
departments to provide responsive communication, training, and classroom technology support.
Moreover, the organizational cultural belief system must align with teachers’ values and beliefs.
Teachers may be hesitant to accept technology practices which do not align with one’s cultural
belief systems and have the potential to disrupt others’ technology integration process.
Conversely, teachers may motivate peers to experiment with new technologies if there is
alignment among belief systems (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Thus, cultural
influences must be assessed and practices adapted as necessary to maintain a healthy
organizational culture.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 170
Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Recommendations
Knowledge Recommendations
Recommendations have been proposed for each knowledge type to maintain or enhance
the existing promising practices. Recommendations for declarative knowledge include providing
opportunities for teachers to practice aligning content standards to a technology type as well as
offering worked examples of sample content standards and technology types to teachers. Two
recommendations were proposed for conceptual knowledge. They were to provide teachers
practice in selecting, organizing, and integrating technology types into their content standards in
addition to modeling effective methods in how and when to select technology types for specific
content standards. Multiple recommendations were offered for procedural knowledge. First,
offer guidance to teachers through coaching sessions or real-time modeling in their classrooms
with students. Next, provide teachers tasks that promote selecting, organizing, and integrating
learning into their teaching. Lastly, allow opportunities for teachers to practice skills from
professional development training sessions for transfer to their classrooms. Finally, a
recommendation for metacognitive knowledge was made to provide opportunities for teachers to
debrief the thinking process upon completion of learning tasks to identify necessary support.
Motivation Recommendations Summary
At least one recommendation was suggested for each motivation component. It was
recommended for value that materials and activities useful to teachers be provided and connected
to one’s specific content areas and real-world tasks. Three recommendations were offered for
self-efficacy. First, demonstrate to teachers how learning from training will be useful in their
daily lives. Next, provide teachers instructional support through various opportunities for
practice and gradually remove support to build confidence. Lastly, afford teachers opportunities
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 171
to observe a credible, model using technology that is valuable to them. The recommendation
made for mood was to support teachers’ need for autonomy and choice. Recommendations for
attribution include providing feedback to teachers focused on learning as well as effort and
instructional strategies. Offering teachers’ choice and the ability to exercise some control in the
way they implement technology within their content areas is also essential. Building supportive
and caring personal relationships between teachers and technology team members was also an
attribution recommendation. Finally, two recommendations for goal orientation were made and
are to create a community of supportive learners where everyone encourages each other’s ability
to learn as well as the technology team makes it safe to take risks.
Organizational Recommendations Summary
Recommendations have been proposed for each organizational section. A
recommendation for resources was made to collaboratively determine organizational priorities so
when difficult decisions arise stakeholders are prepared and resources can be allocated. The
recommendation suggested for policies and procedures was that the organization will conduct an
informal audit of its policies, procedures, and messages to check for alignment or interference
with the goals. Lastly, two recommendations for culture include ensuring planning processes are
well-established as well as identifying essential organizational elements that need to be
considered in the change process. Articulation of how evidence-based change effort is being
adapted for the organization is also a priority.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
XYZ School District states its mission is a learning community committed to personal
growth and academic excellence. The goal of XYZ School District is to maintain high student
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 172
achievement through consistent and high quality technology implementation in conjunction with
differentiated stakeholder support. Since this is a promising practice, there is no specific
problem to solve, but rather analysis and proposed recommendations for how to maintain and
enhance existing practices. Additionally, recommendations and solutions in the areas of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources may be appropriate for solving the problem
of practice at another school district.
While multiple stakeholder groups play a significant role in XYZ School District’s
successful technology implementation, two stakeholder groups have been identified for this
study: K-12 district teachers and district technology team members. It is important to understand
the promising practices of teachers as they integrate technological tools into their specific
content areas. Similarly, technology team members are integral in their continued outreach
through training and development to support the district’s other stakeholders (i.e., administrators,
teachers, and parents) in maintaining high student achievement. Therefore, recommendations
focus on how to continually improve best practices at XYZ School District, while also
transferring this promising practice model to other school districts possessing similar goals.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), effective training is defined as
knowledge and skills learners can transfer to their daily jobs. Effective training will result in
positive organizational outcomes due to high value and effectiveness placed on learning. The
initial Kirkpatrick Model was comprised of four levels in the following order: Level 1: Reaction,
Level 2: Learning, Level 3: Behavior, and Level 4: Results. In this model, Level 4 measured the
extent to which results can be attributed to learning from a training program. The New World
Kirkpatrick Model reversed the level order, making Results, or program outcomes, the focus of
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 173
the model structure. Subsequent levels contribute to the overall results. Level 3: Behavior
measures how critical behaviors from training modules support participants in applying their
learning to their job. Level 2: Learning teaches the knowledge and skills participants require to
transfer skills from training to on the job application. The New World Kirkpatrick Model added
confidence, commitment, and attitude to this level as a way to connect Level 2: Learning and
Level 3: Behavior. Level 1: Reaction measures how participants associate with the training. In
other words, training facilitators must consider if the learning experience is engaging and
enjoyable, while meeting participants’ needs. (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 4: Results measures the extent to which
outcomes are accomplished through training modules and supports. A results statement drives
Level 4 in the New World Kirkpatrick Model and includes multiple stakeholders. The statement
contains the organization’s mission, purpose, and also references resources (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Leading indicators are defined as short term goals and observations used to
determine if behaviors and learning during training sessions achieve overall results. Common
leading indicator examples include customer satisfaction ratings, employee retention rates, and
productivity levels (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). External indicators have an effect beyond
the organization, while internal outcomes directly impact the results of the organization. Table
44 shows outcomes, metrics, and methods for external and internal outcomes and indicates if
training participants are achieving desired results.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 174
Table 44.
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Perpetuate the perception that
XYZ School District is an
organization of continuous
learning.
Number of references
highlighting XYZ School
District’s collaborative culture
(i.e. newspaper, community
organizations, etc.)
School and district
administration will actively
seek opportunities to
promote instances of teacher
collaboration and innovative
professional development
opportunities.
Increase teacher and staff
exposure and participation to
community forums that
showcase technology
innovation.
Number of community
appearances district teachers
and staff make in the
community (i.e. conferences,
presentations, competitions,
etc.)
District technology
personnel will notify staff of
potential opportunities and
support teacher presenters as
needed.
Increased partnerships with
various organizations, both
public and private, to promote
collaboration and innovation
growth opportunities
Number of partnerships
cultivated
District and school
administration will monitor
and the number of
partnerships formed and
actively network for new
collaborators.
Internal Outcomes
Increased student achievement
scores in Math and English
Language Arts
Score reports for CAASPP
math and English Language
Arts
School administration will
track/ monitor the number of
Interim Assessment Blocks
given by teachers, by grade,
and student progress.
Increased professional
development training
opportunities for teachers who
have advanced beyond current
training modules
The number of professional
development opportunities
offered to teachers beyond the
current modules.
District technology team
members will catalogue all
newly created training
modules and advertise to
teachers.
Increased technology driven
risk-taking among teachers
The number of new technology
programs, data tools, and
instructional strategies tried by
teachers.
Educational Technologists
compile a log of new
initiatives tried by teachers.
Increased technology focused
professional learning
communities among teachers
and technology team members
The number of professional
learning communities formed
and participants grade and
subject taught
Technology team members
and school administration
monitor and log professional
learning community meeting
notes and agendas.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 175
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Level 3: Behavior measures how and to what degree participants
apply learning from training modules to their daily job responsibilities. Critical behaviors, or
key actions, are the essential behaviors needed to successfully transfer learning from training to
one’s job in order to achieve desired outcomes and results. Required drivers, or processes and
systems, monitor, encourage, and reward utilization of critical behaviors while on the job.
Examples of required drivers are coaching, job aides, and recognition (Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick, 2016). According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), organizations that
implement critical behaviors and drivers with fidelity have a higher probability employees will
transfer knowledge and skills from training modules to the job.
Critical behaviors necessary to achieve organizational goals for both district teachers and
technology team members include:
a). Teachers take technology risks both in their classrooms and at community
forums.
b). Create Professional Learning Communities comprised of teachers and technology
team members.
c). Technology team members develop advanced training modules for teachers
promoting innovation and self-regulated learning.
Table 45 delineates critical behaviors with assigned metrics, methods, and timing.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 176
Table 45.
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
Teachers take
technology risks both
in their classrooms
and through
community forums.
The number of
lessons teachers
facilitate using
technology
The number of
outside presentations
made by teachers
Collection of sample
teacher lesson plans
demonstrating
technology use
Per trimester for grades K-6
and per semester for grades
7 - 12.
Create Professional
Learning
Communities
comprised of teachers
and technology team
members.
The number of
teachers and
technology team
members participating
in Personal Learning
Community forums
Implementation plan
as well as agenda and
meeting notes with
attendees
Implementation plan
denoting various steps in
the process
semester 1: planning,
semester 2: pilot
implementation
Semester 3: full scale
implementation
Semester 4 and beyond:
monitor implementation
Technology team
members develop
advanced training
modules for teachers
promoting innovation
and professional
learning communities.
The number of
training modules
produced.
Continuum of
training opportunities
for staff with the
advanced modules
included.
Over the course of the
academic school year and
summer planning months.
Required drivers. A required driver reinforces critical behaviors to achieve results.
Drivers strengthen knowledge and skills by using systems of accountability as well as monitor,
reward, and encourage employee performance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Drivers also
assume multiple forms such as timely and accurate feedback, coaching, mentoring, and
encouragement. Peer support and accountability measures as well as shared employee goals are
also examples of required drivers (“How to Use Drivers to Ensure Training Success,” 2014).
Execution and ongoing monitoring of required drivers is essential to a program’s success. Table
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 177
46 outlines recommended required drivers for achievement of technology implementation and
innovation among teachers through advanced training modules and peer collaboration.
Table 46.
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job aides provided to teachers
to practice alignment of
content standards to
technology tools.
Ongoing 1
Flowchart and/or idea chart
provided to teachers and
technology team members to
support the formation of
collaboration teams
as needed to initiate and
sustain the process
2
Worked examples of training
modules for advanced training
as needed to initiate and
sustain the process
1, 3
Direct messaging to teachers
about peer collaboration
opportunities (i.e., email,
technology newsletters, staff
meetings, grade level
meetings)
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Follow-up training based on
teacher needs.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Shared goals by grade level
teachers to reinforce the
selection, organization, and
integration of technology
types into content standards
1, 2, 3
Teachers participate in
coaching and mentoring for
real-time instructional support
and practice in their
classrooms.
Monthly 1
Teachers and technology team
members collaborate on
technology integration best
practices.
Ongoing 2, 3
Support for self-directed
learning
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 178
Targeted feedback by
technology team members to
teachers as well as among
teacher colleagues
Ongoing 1, 3
Rewarding
Public recognition of teachers
through presentations at
technology innovation
conferences
ongoing as opportunities arise 1, 3
Administration highlights
peer collaboration group (i.e.
grade level, PLC) for
technology integration
per semester 1, 3
Positive recognition of
teacher(s) efforts through
technology best practice
presentations at staff meetings
Monthly 1, 2
Positive recognition and
delivery of best practices
through district-wide
Community of Practice event
Monitoring
Track the number of lessons
using technology facilitated
by teachers.
by semester 1
Monitor the number of
collaboration meetings among
teachers and/or teachers and
technology team members
through agendas and meeting
notes.
by semester 2
Monitor the number of
teachers participating in
outside technology
Ongoing 1, 3
Conduct informal audits of
resources, policies,
procedures and messages to
check for alignment or
interference with the goals
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Organizational support. In order to support recommendations of critical behaviors
from Table 46, specific organizational changes must occur. First, resources such as worked
examples, job aides, flowcharts, and newsletters must be developed and/or refined to address
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 179
reinforcement drivers. Next, time must be designated for the development of peer collaboration
through professional learning communities. This may pose the biggest organizational challenge
as teachers often express a lack of time to assume additional responsibilities and initiatives
beyond their job responsibilities during the regular school day. Additional blocks of time must
be arranged among peer collaborators and supported by site and district administration such as
best practices to be delivered at school site staff meetings or district-wide Community of Practice
events, where teachers can utilize self-directed learning to attend presentation sessions by peers
that directly relate to their interests and content areas. Moreover, time must be allocated for
technology team members to both design and facilitate advanced training modules. Additionally,
monitoring systems must be established to track the number of technology lessons facilitated by
teachers as well as professional learning communities or other types of peer collaboration to
analyze how these partnerships influence the type and frequency of technology lessons being
taught by teachers. Another important system consideration is how informal audits of resources,
policies, procedures, and messages will function to check for alignment or interference with
district-wide goals. Lastly, additional district-wide cultural shifts must occur so positive
recognition is perceived as authentic among teachers and risk-taking is valued among staff.
Level 2: Learning
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 2: Learning is defined as the
knowledge and skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment participants glean from training for
application in their daily jobs. Confidence and commitment were added to The New World
Kirkpatrick Model (2016) to connect Level 3: Behavior with Level 2: Learning. Knowledge is
the information learners obtain and is summarized by the statement, “I know it.” Skills are tasks
to be performed by the learner and represent the idea, “I can do it right now.” Attitude is
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 180
described as value the learner places on the training and how it will benefit him/her personally on
the job. Confidence refers to participants’ beliefs that they will be able to apply training
principles to their jobs, while commitment addresses participants’ level of willingness to apply
training principles to their daily job responsibilities (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Overall,
the goal of Level 2: Learning is to prevent repetitive training, which is both wasteful and does
not transfer to application of learned principles on the job.
Learning goals. District technology team members and K-12 district teachers must work
collaboratively to achieve the learning goals listed below in order to confidently commit to the
application of knowledge and skills learned in training to their everyday work.
Knowledge
Teachers
● Identify characteristics of technology driven risk-taking behaviors. (Declarative
factual)
● Infer how risk-taking experiences using technology can contribute to personal
growth in teaching and learning. (Conceptual)
● Develop a list of risk-taking strategies to utilize within the classroom (Procedural)
● Reflect on risk-taking behavior and opportunities for growth. (Metacognitive)
Teachers and Technology Team Members
● Define a Professional Learning Community. (Declarative factual)
● Understand the structure and components of a Professional Learning Community.
(Conceptual)
● List and practice effective collaboration/communication strategies to be used
during a Professional Learning Community meetings. (Procedural)
● Reflect on one’s individual role and contributions for growth in a Professional
Learning Community.
Technology Team Members
● Define advanced training needs for teachers. (Declarative factual)
● Describe how training modules can support teacher enrichment and engagement
with technology.
● Develop a continuum of training to differentiate for teachers’ needs (Procedural)
● Reflect on current training module gaps and successes (Metacognitive)
Motivation
Teachers and Technology Team Members
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 181
● Value an organizational culture of collaboration and continuous learning. (Value)
● Exhibit confidence in one’s ability to seek out continual professional learning
opportunities (Self-efficacy)
● Feel positive about training sessions and technology risk-taking (Mood)
● Attribute individual success to one’s own efforts (Attribution)
Program. Program goals will be achieved through three training domains: professional
development training, mentoring and research and development. Both teachers and technology
team members will attend five professional development sessions throughout the school year:
two eight hour sessions during the summer prior to the beginning of the school year, one four
hour session in the fall, one four hour in the spring, and one final four hour session prior to the
culminating event, the Community of Practice, which will occur at the end of the school year.
Initial training sessions will introduce participants to the successful components and structures of
Professional Learning Communities. Additionally, training will provide participants time to
establish shared values and group norms so members feel comfortable and positive about risk-
taking with regards to technology implementation. Effective collaboration and communication
strategies for use once PLCs have been established by participants will be addressed during
training sessions as well as time for practice and feedback from the facilitator will also be
provided as part of the professional development curriculum. Finally, participants will have the
opportunity for continual reflection on one’s individual role and contributions for growth in a
Professional Learning Community.
Between the aforementioned training sessions, teachers and technology members will
meet periodically to plan and execute a student focused technology initiative to be shared with
district colleagues at the Community of Practice event in the spring. The final training session
will provide teams time to prepare their presentations for the event. Although PLC meeting
frequency will be based on individual team needs, it is highly encouraged PLCs meet twice
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 182
between each of the five training sessions to successfully move their initiatives forward as well
as bring meeting challenges and successes to training sessions. Professional development
training and PLC meetings will work in tandem to prepare and support participants to share their
team work through technology risk-taking at a district-wide event, providing public recognition
as well as hopefully encouraging the formation of future collaboration teams among attendees.
Additionally, technology team members will develop advanced training modules for
teachers who seek further training and inspiration for technology implementation in order to
promote a culture of continuous learning. The technology team will first seek input from teacher
leaders and observe classrooms where technology integration is high before creating advanced
project-based training. Training sessions will provide high self-attribution for the teachers
through self-directed learning and direct application of learning to their classrooms. This
training module will also support teaching with engagement in community forums beyond XYZ
School District. Thus, participants will gain additional knowledge and skills as well as
confidence in engaging in innovative technology learning.
Evaluation of the components of learning. During the training sessions, activities must
occur to check for participants’ understanding and also evaluate learning goals as they relate to
declarative knowledge and procedural skills as well as participants’ attitudes, confidence, and
commitment to apply learning from training to their daily professional work. Table 47 outlines
activities as well as timing that will occur for the professional development sessions.
Table 47.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Discussion about the definition and structure
of Professional Learning Communities.
during and after the training sessions
Knowledge checks through individual and
group activities
during the training sessions
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 183
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Feedback from facilitator for group norm
creation
during the training sessions
Simulation of Professional Learning
Community meeting with strategy provided
checklist
during the training sessions
Debrief of meeting simulation during the training session
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussions about PLC value during the training session
Survey assessing participant mood for training
curriculum
during and after the training sessions
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Opportunities to share PLC team success
stories that may have occurred between
training sessions
during the training sessions
Survey about participants’ self-efficacy as it
relates to training and individual job
application
before and after the training sessions
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Individual team action plan for Community of
Practice initiative
during the training sessions
Self-reflection of individual application of
training components on one’s job as well as
participation in the Community of Practice
event
after the training sessions.
Level 1: Reaction
The New World Kirkpatrick Model defines Level 1: Reaction as the measurement of
favorability, relevancy, and engagement as it relates to training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick
(2016). According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) customer satisfaction correlates to
learning to a degree, but the goal in collecting and analyzing such data must be to remove
barriers to learning. Moreover, engagement must measure how interested and personally
responsible participants are for their own learning, while relevancy gauges the likelihood
participants will apply what they have learned to their daily job. If there is a low relevancy rate,
training is often deemed wasteful and ineffective (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As in all
levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model it is important to adjust and monitor as needed to
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 184
maximize participants’ learning. Table 48 outlines the methods that will be used to determine
how participants react to the training sessions.
Table 48.
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance logs during the training sessions
Active participation during group discussions
and activities.
during the training sessions
Training evaluation after every session to
monitor and adjust as needed.
after the training sessions
Instructor observation of participants' body
language
during the training sessions
Relevance
Pulse check to obtain feedback during the training sessions
Debrief session during and after training sessions
Training evaluation at the conclusion of each
session as well as at the end of the entire
module
after training sessions
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse check to obtain feedback during the training sessions
Training evaluation after the training sessions
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016), there are two types of evaluation tools: immediate and delayed. Immediate
evaluation tools measure participant reaction directly after conclusion of a training for areas such
as: favorability, relevancy, and timing. Feedback forms, online evaluations, and “smile sheets”
are examples of evaluation tools. Delayed evaluation tools provide time for participants to apply
what they have learned on the job, while allowing for required drivers to reinforce critical
behaviors and achieve level four results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The immediate
evaluation tool (Appendix I) will utilize a multiple choice question format with the following
options: strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree to assess Level 1: Reaction
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 185
components of engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction as well as Level 2: Learning for
declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, attitude, confidence, and commitment.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The delayed evaluation tool
will be disseminated to training participants approximately 40-60 days after the final training
session concludes. The time period between the final training session and distribution of the
evaluation tool will provide the opportunity to analyze how participants applied knowledge and
skills from training to their jobs as well as how required drivers supported critical behavior and
ultimately the organizational goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The delayed evaluation
tool (Appendix J) will assess for relevancy and customer satisfaction at Level 1: Reaction. Level
2: Learning will measure declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, attitude, confidence,
and commitment. A multiple choice question format with the following options: strongly agree,
agree, disagree, and strongly disagree will be utilized for both Level 1: Reaction and Level 2:
Learning. Short answer responses will be used to assess critical behaviors for Level 3: Behaviors
as well as participants’ application of training curriculum to achieve the organizational goal for
Level 4: Results.
Data Analysis and Reporting
It is essential to report both formative and summative data gathered from critical
behaviors in order to achieve organizational goals. These critical behaviors include: a) teachers
take technology risks both in their classrooms and through community forums; b) create
Professional Learning Communities comprised of teachers and technology team members; c)
technology team members develop advanced training modules focused on self-regulated learning
for teachers that promotes innovation and professional learning communities. Data from both
immediate and delayed evaluation tools will be aggregated into easy to read graphic
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 186
representations. Brief narratives describing technology driven initiatives occurring via
Professional Learning Community Teams will support the evaluation data since this was work
produced because of professional development training sessions. Information will be
disseminated at the end of the first semester to district stakeholders documenting progress via a
newsletter sent by the Chief Technology Officer. The second semester update will share program
success internally at the first annual district-wide Community of Practice event during a keynote
address by district leadership. Teachers and technology team members who participated in the
training program and PLC initiative will also briefly share highlights from their individual
experiences. Moreover, presentation of program success may also be presented to other school
districts through presentations at technology or educational leadership conferences.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was used to implement and evaluate
recommendations in order to operationalize XYZ School District’s organizational goals of
fostering a community of continuous learners through collaborative and innovative growth
opportunities, while also promoting technology driven risk-taking among teachers and
maintaining academic excellence. The framework is results driven and consists of four levels,
starting with organizational goals followed by targeted behaviors and training to obtain positive
reactions and lasting results. Systems are also embedded in the framework to monitor and adjust
training and support as necessary.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model begins with Level 4: Results. At this level, outcomes
are measured through the facilitation of training modules and supports, while leading indicators,
both short term goals and observations, determine if training sessions achieve overall results.
Level 3: Behavior assesses to what extent participants apply training principles to their daily job
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 187
responsibilities. Furthermore, the way in which critical behaviors are adopted by individuals’ to
their work measures the degree of learning that has transferred from training to one’s job in order
to achieve desired outcomes and results. Required drivers monitor, encourage, and reward
participants for utilization of critical behaviors while on the job. Level 2: Learning is comprised
of the knowledge and skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment participants obtain from
training for application in their daily jobs. Finally, Level 1: Reaction measures favorability,
relevancy, and engagement as it relates to training as well as utilizes both immediate and delayed
evaluation tools to collect additional data on how participants both perceived training as well as
applied principles learned to their workplace.
This framework provides multiple advantages for implementation and recommendations
of a training program. For instance, the New World Kirkpatrick Model affords a structure to
continually benchmark an organization’s performance in order to strive for continual
improvement. Throughout all four levels the question of whether expectations are currently
being met should repeatedly be posed. If results fall short of expectations, metrics such as
critical behaviors and leading indicators can be assessed and required drivers can be used to
adjust the organizational approach (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Thus, the framework is
structured, yet malleable to drive organizational change.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations include the sample size of the study, district demographics, and the author’s
positionality. The school district of focus is relatively small, comprised of just three elementary
schools, one junior high school, and one high school. Moreover, the school district boasts both
high academic achievement, parental involvement, and overall high socioeconomic status.
While the promising practice of technology integration is being studied, the generalizability may
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 188
be limited as much larger school districts face additional challenges not applicable here. Since
these potential variables are nonexistent in this study, it is unknown how they may affect a
technology integration plan. Another limitation was the sample size was limited to
approximately 100 survey responses, eight teacher interviews, six technology team interviews,
and six observations encompassing both elementary and secondary levels. A larger school
district would require additional resources and time to collect the same percentage of data
presented in this study. Lastly, the author of this study works within the school district as an
administrator at one of the three elementary school sites. In order to limit potential bias, teachers
from this site were not selected as part of the interview sample nor as observation participants,
thus limiting potential participant insight.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research may focus on the transferability of XYZ School District’s promising
practice of high technology integration and high student achievement to other school districts.
Since the school district is relatively small in size and possesses a reputation for high academic
achievement and high socioeconomic status, it is important to study the application of this model
in a larger school district with different socio-economic demographics in order to vet the
promising practice as an approach as well as to ensure its transferability. Additionally, strong
parent participation, including several parent scientists, associate a high degree of agency with
technology implementation. However, it is important to consider how communities that do not
share a similar school community composition or affinity for technology may find agency with
technology integration. Furthermore, application of the process in a different context would also
determine the level of impact the Chief Technology Officer has in fostering organizational
change since this individual has forged positive relationships with district stakeholders and is
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 189
also a former high school teacher in the school district studied. A closer look at this factor would
decipher if an individual or process is impacting change. Lastly, experimenting with the study’s
structure in a different organizational context would also remove the author’s positionality and
ultimately determine if that played a role in securing data such as survey responses and
interviews.
Conclusion
In sum, XYZ School District states its mission is a learning community committed to
personal growth and academic excellence. The goal of this promising practice study was to
determine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that contribute to XYZ
School District’s ability to maintain high student achievement through consistent and high
quality technology implementation in conjunction with differentiated stakeholder support. Clark
and Estes’ (2008) GAP Analysis Process provided a conceptual framework for detailed analysis
of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Similarly, utilization of the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) offered training implementation and recommendations to not
only maintain and enhance existing practices, but also foster transferability to other educational
organizations regardless of structure and socioeconomic demographics.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 190
References
Academic Performance Calculation: Methodology for measuring performance on Academic
Performance (2019). Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/acadindcal.asp
An, Y. J., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms:
K–12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 28(2), 54-62.
Anderson, L. W. (2001). Krathwohl (2001). A Taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on psychological
science, 1(2), 164-180.
Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and
perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? Computers & education,
39(4), 395-414.
Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. O. E. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to
success. Journal of technology and teacher education, 10(1), 95-100.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories and
methods. Boston, MA: Allen and Bacon.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research
journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Bring your own Chromebook (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.lcusd.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=427554&type=d&pREC_ID=932
821_ID
Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 191
technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and
practices. Journal of research on technology in education, 39(1), 22-43.
California School Dashboard (2017). Retrieved from https://www.caschooldashboard.org/
Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers
and students. Journal of Research on technology in Education, 34(4), 411-433.
Clark, R. E. (Ed.). (2001). Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence. IAP.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of educational
research, 53(4), 445-459.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pub Incorporated.
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S., Moulton, K., Silber, K. H., & Foshay, R. (2010). An analysis of
the failure of electronic media and discovery-based learning: Evidence for the
performance benefits of guided training methods. Handbook of training and improving
workplace performance, 1, 263-297.
Chiu, T. K., & Churchill, D. (2016). Adoption of mobile devices in teaching: Changes in teacher
beliefs, attitudes and anxiety. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(2), 317-327.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Ronnkvist, A. M. (2002). Quality technology support:
What is it? Who has it? And what difference does it make? Journal of Educational
Computing Research. 26(3), 265-285.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 41–56.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge,
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 192
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of research on Technology in
Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes
required by Jonassen's vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers &
Education, 64, 175-182.
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.
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & York, C. S. (2006). Exemplary technology-using
teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of computing in teacher
education, 23(2), 55-61.
Evans, J. (2018). The educational equity imperative: Leveraging technology to empower learning
for all, Speak-Up Research Project for Digital Learning.
Feldon, D. (2006). Expertise. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
expertise/
Franklin, T., Turner, S., Kariuki, M., & Duran, M. (2001). Mentoring overcomes barriers to
technology integration. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 18(1), 26-31.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. J., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through
collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4),
57-67.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 193
Godoe, P., & Johansen, T. (2012). Understanding adoption of new technologies: Technology
readiness and technology acceptance as an integrated concept. Journal of European
Psychology Students, 3(1). 38-52.
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers' Use of Educational Technology in US
Public Schools: 2009. First Look. NCES 2010-040. National Center for Education
Statistics.
Groff, J., & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology
use. AACe Journal, 16(1), 21-46.
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of research on technology in education, 41(4), 393-416.
Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. Teaching: Theory into
practice, 2013, 154-170.
How to Use Drivers to Ensure Training Success (2014). Retrieved from
https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Blog/ID/388/How-to-Use-Drivers-to-Ensure-
Training-Success#.Xj-ktTFKg2w
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of technology and teacher education, 13(2),
277-302.
Instructional Technology (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.burbankusd.org/District/Department/41-Instructional-Technology
Kanaya, T., Light, D., & McMillan Culp, K. (2005). Factors influencing outcomes from a
technology-focused professional development program. Journal of Research on
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 194
Technology in Education, 37(3), 313-329.
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and teacher education, 29, 76-85.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training
Evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Kleiman, G. M. (2000). Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools. Leadership and
the New Technologies, 14(10), 1-8.
Kopcha, T. (2010). A systems-based approach to technology integration using mentoring and
communities of practice. Educational Technology Research and Development. 58(2):175-
190.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education, 59(4), 1109-1121.
Lichtman, M. (2014). Drawing meaning from the data. Qualitative research for the social.
Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Bridging the gap:
Technology trends and use of technology in schools. Journal of Educational Technology
& Society, 16(2), 59-68.
Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers' adaptive metacognition.
Educational psychologist, 40(4), 245-255.
Liu, M., Ko, Y., Willmann, A., & Fickert, C. (2018). Examining the Role of Professional
Development in a Large School District's iPad Initiative. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 50(1), 48-69.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: using the same instructional design
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 195
methods across different media. Learning and instruction, 13(2), 125-139.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Does styles research have useful implications for educational
practice? Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 319-320.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McKnight, K., O'Malley, K., Ruzic, R., Horsley, M. K., Franey, J. J., & Bassett, K. (2016).
Teaching in a digital age: How educators use technology to improve student
learning. Journal of research on technology in education, 48(3), 194-211.
Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of
research on technology in education, 42(3), 285-307.
Mellon, A. (1999). Technology and the great pendulum of education, Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 32:1, 28-35.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Mouza, C. (2002). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional
development. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 35(2), 272-289.
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher
value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student
needs. Computers & education, 55(3), 1321-1335.
Phelps, R., & Graham, A. (2008). Developing technology together, together: A whole-school
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 196
metacognitive approach to ICT teacher professional development. Journal of Computing
in Teacher Education, 24(4), 125-134.
Philip, T., & Garcia, A. (2013). The importance of still teaching the iGeneration: New
technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 300-
319.
Plair, S. K. (2008). Revamping professional development for technology integration and
fluency. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas, 82(2), 70-74.
Prytula, M. P. (2012). Teacher metacognition within the professional learning community.
International Education Studies, 5(4), 112-121.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of
instructional media. Educational technology research and development, 49(1), 53.
Rush Hovde, M., & Renguette, C. C. (2017). Technological literacy: A framework for teaching
technical communication software tools. Technical Communication Quarterly, 26(4),
395-411.
Sahin, A., Top, N., & Delen, E. (2016). Teachers’ first-year experience with Chromebook
laptops and their attitudes towards technology integration. Technology, Knowledge and
Learning, 21(3), 361-378.
Scott, T., Mannion, R., Davies, H., & Marshall, M. (2003). The quantitative measurement of
organizational culture in health care: a review of the available instruments. Health
services research, 38(3), 923-945.
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics 2015, NCES
2016-014. National Center for Education Statistics.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 197
Stanhope, D. S., & Corn, J. O. (2014). Acquiring teacher commitment to 1: 1 initiatives: The role
of the technology facilitator. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3),
252-276.
Sugar, W. (2005). Instructional technologist as a coach: Impact of a situated professional
development program on teachers' technology use. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(4), 547.
Technology and Information Services (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.ausd.net/apps/pages/tis
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The condition of
education.
Vannatta, R. A., & Nancy, F. (2004). Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology
use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(3), 253-271.
Vongkulluksn, V. W., Xie, K., & Bowman, M. A. (2018). The role of value on teachers'
internalization of external barriers and externalization of personal beliefs for classroom
technology integration. Computers & Education, 118, 70-81.
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs for technology integration. Journal of research on technology in education, 36(3),
231-250.
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling:
Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational policy, 18(4), 562-588.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 198
perspective. American educational research journal, 40(4), 807-840.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology
innovations. Teachers college record, 104(3), 482-515.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 199
Appendix A
Definition of Terms
Ares – student database portal
Classlink – single sign-on portal to access educational files and programs housed on the cloud
Educational Technologist – responsible for providing technological instructional support to
teachers.
Google Chromebook – inexpensive and portable laptop that stores data online
Google Chromebook Cart – a set of approximately 20 – 30 devices with charging capabilities
Illuminate – data analysis platform and grading portal
Informational Technologist – responsible for website and student roster construction;
infrastructure and network maintenance
ITSE – The International Society for Technology in Education; a non-profit organization
supporting technology integration in education
Site Technologist – responsible for providing school staff hardware and software support on site
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 200
Appendix B
Teacher Survey
1. I learn about professional development opportunities_______. Check all that apply.
❏ through district emails
❏ at staff meetings
❏ through discussion with a technology team member
❏ from district office communication
❏ from colleagues
2. I take these action(s) when I require support or help with technology implementation in
my classroom: Check all that apply.
❏ contact the technologist assigned to my site
❏ submit a technology ticket through the district website
❏ contact the technologist assigned to my site
❏ submit a technology ticket through the district website
❏ contact the Chief Technology Officer
❏ contact the Educational Services department
❏ ask a colleague
3. From the list provided, identify the technological tools you regularly use during
instruction in your classroom. Check all that apply.
❏ Google applications
❏ Textbook resources
❏ Illuminate
❏ Classlink applications
❏ Aeries
❏ outside resources
❏ I find my own
4. I know the type of technology that best supports different content standards.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 201
5. My lesson objective determines the type of technology I might integrate into my
instruction.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
6. I can adapt ideas from professional development sessions into my instruction.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
7. I change how I use technology based on the content I am teaching.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
8. I differentiate my technology use based on my instructional objective.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
9. What do you look for in a lesson that would prompt you to use technology? Check all
that apply.
❏ student collaboration
❏ class discussion
❏ research
❏ writing
❏ projects
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 202
10. I know how to integrate technology into my instruction.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
11. I regularly reflect on my technological knowledge/skills.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
12. I seek out technology support as needed.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
13. I talk through my lessons using technology with peers or a technology team member.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
14. I regularly self-assess how I use technology in my classroom.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 203
15. Based on self-assessment, I adjust instructional strategies as necessary.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
16. Compared to other district professional development training, how much do you value
technology training?
❏ Do not value at all
❏ Slightly value
❏ Moderately value
❏ Strongly value
17. It is important for me to use technology in my classroom because it supports my students’
content knowledge.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
18. Select a number from 0 to 100 using the scale below in response to the following statement:
I am confident I can use what I learn in professional development training provided by the
technology team right now.
19. Select a number from 1 to 100 using the scale below in response to the following statement:
I am confident I can incorporate technology into my lessons right now.
20. I feel positive about technology focused professional development trainings.
❏ Definitely disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Definitely agree
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 204
21. I feel positive about using technology in my classroom with students.
❏ Strongly disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Strongly agree
22. My success with technology integration into my lessons is due to my own efforts.
❏ Strongly disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Strongly agree
23. How often do you interact with educational technology team members in a given month?
❏ Not at all
❏ 1 - 3 times
❏ 4 - 6 times
❏ More than six hours
24. There are sufficient devices available to students in order to facilitate lessons with
technology.
❏ Strongly disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Strongly agree
25. District technology policies are well aligned with differentiated professional development
resources for teachers.
❏ Strongly disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Strongly agree
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 205
26. District procedures are well aligned with device usage for classroom instruction.
❏ Strongly disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Strongly agree
27. District procedures are well aligned with device usage for common assessments.
❏ Strongly disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Strongly agree
28. There is a district-wide culture of continuous learning about technology.
❏ Strongly disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Strongly agree
29. Professional development training provided by the technology team supports continuous
learning about technology.
❏ Strongly disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Strongly agree
30. I feel supported when taking technological risks in my classroom?
❏ Strongly disagree
❏ Disagree
❏ Agree
❏ Strongly agree
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 206
Appendix C
Technology Interview Protocol
1. How does the technology team communicate professional development trainings to
teachers?
2. Tell me about the types of technology support teachers request from your team.
3. What technology is available to teachers for use in their classrooms?
4. What instruction do you provide to teachers to help them match technology with content
standards?
5. What part of your training helps teachers compare technology to decide the best match
for their lessons?
6. What are some models you provide in trainings that teachers can transfer to their
classrooms?
7. In what ways do you show teachers how to change technology based on their lesson
objective?
8. In what ways do you guide teachers in determining which technology to use with
different lesson types?
9. In what ways do you instruct teachers about when to insert technology into their lessons
to achieve the lesson objective?
10. What steps do you take so teachers know how to apply professional training strategies to
their teaching?
11. How do you help teachers use a training strategy within their classrooms?
12. A teacher approaches you after attending a recent training session and states she is
experiencing difficulty implementing technology into her content area. She is frustrated
and believes the training to be a waste of time. How would you respond?
13. It is the end of the school year and you are debriefing with two teachers: one who has
utilized best practices and another who is struggling to understand the benefits of
technology integration. How would you address each teacher’s individual situation?
14. A teacher wants to adjust her instructional strategies to increase technology usage in her
classroom. How would you engage in a discussion with the teacher who is undergoing
self-assessment of her classroom instruction?
15. How do you increase a sense of value among teachers for technology trainings?
16. How do you decide which activities are part of training to support student learning?
17. How confident are you training teachers’ technology use in the classroom?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 207
18. How confident do you feel your team is helping teachers to implement technology into
their lessons?
19. How do you communicate positive feelings about technology usage during training
sessions?
20. Describe how you promote positive technology experiences for teachers?
21. In what ways do you believe some teachers’ technology efforts succeed, while others
fail?
22. How do you encourage technology risk-taking among teachers?
23. How often would you say you meet with teachers to discuss technology?
a. Give me an example of a recent discussion.
24. Describe how device access affects teachers’ frequency of technology use?
25. How do district policies impact training offerings and differentiated support for teachers?
26. How does your instruction align with device usage for instruction and common
assessments?
27. What are some ways teachers participate in ongoing technology training?
28. In what ways do you support teachers in experimenting with technology?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 208
Appendix D
Teacher Interview Protocol
1. Tell me about how you find out about professional development training?
2. Who do you contact when you have questions about technology in your classroom or
need support?
3. What technology tools are available to you for use in your classroom?
4. Give me some examples of a good match between technology and content standards
5. Give me an example of a lesson and technology pairing you have used.
a. Why or why not was it effective?
6. Identify a few good technology focused lesson strategies you have learned from
trainings?
7. Give me an example of a lesson topic and type of technology you have used together.
8. Share two different ways you have used technology in your teaching and summarize why
you decided to use each tool in the way that you did.
9. How do you decide when to apply learning from training in your classroom?
10. Describe how you implement your learning from a training into your teaching?
11. After attending a training, how do you implement a learned strategy into your lessons?
12. After attending multiple trainings and several attempts, you are having difficulty making
technology function properly in your classroom. What’s the next thing you do?
13. After attending a training you want to use more technology in your classroom. What do
you do next?
14. How valuable is it for you to attend technology trainings?
15. Please describe some reasons for using technology in your lessons.
16. How confident are you about using strategies learned from training with your students?
17. To what degree do you feel confident about using technology to teach your lessons?
18. How do you feel about district technology trainings?
19. How do you feel about using technology with your lessons?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 209
20. What are the reasons technology succeeds or fails in your classroom?
21. Describe a way or two you have taken risks with technology in your classroom?
22. What types of discussions have you had with technology team members?
23. Describe technology access at your site.
24. How do you feel district technology policies align with differentiated support and
training?
25. How do district procedures affect your device usage for common assessments and
instructionally?
26. Give me a couple of examples how you regularly advance and/or update your learning
about technology.
27. What makes you feel supported when experimenting with technology?
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 210
Appendix E
Teacher Observation Checklist
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Observation Yes
No
Notes
Declarative Factual
(terms, facts, concepts)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers know where to
find district professional
development opportunities.
Teachers know who to
contact from the district
technology team regarding
differentiated support or
implementation of a new
technological practice
within their classrooms.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers know the
technological tools, both
hardware and software that
are appropriate for
instructional use in their
classrooms.
Teachers know their
content standards that are
best taught with
technology.
Declarative Conceptual
(categories, process
models, principles,
relationships)
Critical Behavior 1
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 211
Teachers compare various
technological tools to
determine which is most
appropriate in achieving
their instructional goals.
Teachers are able to
generalize models and
structures learned from
professional development.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers understand how
different technological
tools support different
content delivery.
Teachers differentiate
between technology
applications/structures in
order to achieve a specific
instructional goal.
Procedural
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers know when to
apply skills learned from
professional development
sessions.
Teachers know how to
apply skills learned from
professional development.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers know how to
integrate instructional and
technological skills and
knowledge.
Metacognitive
Critical Behavior 1
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 212
Teachers reflect on
personal gaps in
knowledge and skills,
knowing when to seek out
professional development
support.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers self-assess their
classroom instruction and
adjust instructional
strategies as needed.
Assumed
Motivation
Influences
Observation Yes
No
Notes
Value
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers value
professional training
opportunities to hone
instructional strategies in
conjunction with
technology within their
classrooms.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers value technology
integration to support
student acquisition of
content knowledge.
Self-Efficacy
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers are confident
they can transfer their
learning from professional
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 213
development into the
classroom.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers are confident
they can implement
technology into content
lessons.
Mood
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers feel positive
about professional
development.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers feel positive
about using technology in
their classrooms.
Attribution
Teachers attribute their
success and failures in
integrating technology in
their content lessons to
their own efforts.
Goal Orientation
Teachers are willing to
take risks and learn from
their mistakes.
Assumed Organizational
Influences
Observation Yes
No
Notes
Resources (time;
finances; people)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers have regular
access to educational
technology team members
with whom they may
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 214
consult regarding
implementation issues or
innovative strategies they
aim to experiment with in
their classrooms.
Critical Behavior 2
There is one to one access
for all students so that
teachers have sufficient
devices to facilitate
lessons using technology.
Policies, Processes, &
Procedures
Critical Behavior 1
Policies outlined in the
district’s technology
implementation plan align
with year round,
differentiated professional
development resources for
teachers.
Critical Behavior 2
District procedures align
with targeted use of
devices for instructional
purposes and common
assessments.
Culture
Critical Behavior 1
Overall, teachers perceive
there is a culture of
continuous learning
through professional
development to deliver
consistent technology
infused lessons.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers feel supported
and safe in taking
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 215
technological risks within
their classrooms.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 216
Appendix F
Document Analysis Checklist
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Documents Yes
No
Notes
Declarative Factual
(terms, facts, concepts)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers know where to
find district professional
development opportunities.
Teachers know who to
contact from the district
technology team regarding
differentiated support or
implementation of a new
technological practice
within their classrooms.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers know the
technological tools, both
hardware and software that
are appropriate for
instructional use in their
classrooms.
Teachers know their
content standards that are
best taught with
technology.
Declarative Conceptual
(categories, process
models, principles,
relationships)
Critical Behavior 1
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 217
Teachers compare various
technological tools to
determine which is most
appropriate in achieving
their instructional goals.
Teachers are able to
generalize models and
structures learned from
professional development.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers understand how
different technological
tools support different
content delivery.
Teachers differentiate
between technology
applications/structures in
order to achieve a specific
instructional goal.
Procedural
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers know when to
apply skills learned from
professional development
sessions.
Teachers know how to
apply skills learned from
professional development.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers know how to
integrate instructional and
technological skills and
knowledge.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 218
Metacognitive
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers reflect on
personal gaps in
knowledge and skills,
knowing when to seek out
professional development
support.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers self-assess their
classroom instruction and
adjust instructional
strategies as needed.
Assumed
Motivation
Influences
Documents Yes
No
Notes
Value
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers value
professional training
opportunities to hone
instructional strategies in
conjunction with
technology within their
classrooms.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers value technology
integration to support
student acquisition of
content knowledge.
Self-Efficacy
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers are confident
they can transfer their
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 219
learning from professional
development into the
classroom.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers are confident
they can implement
technology into content
lessons.
Mood
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers feel positive
about professional
development.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers feel positive
about using technology in
their classrooms.
Attribution
Teachers attribute their
success and failures in
integrating technology in
their content lessons to
their own efforts.
Goal Orientation
Teachers are willing to
take risks and learn from
their mistakes.
Assumed Organizational
Influences
Documents Yes
No
Notes
Resources (time; finances;
people)
Critical Behavior 1
Teachers have regular
access to educational
technology team members
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 220
with whom they may
consult regarding
implementation issues or
innovative strategies they
aim to experiment with in
their classrooms.
Critical Behavior 2
There is one to one access
for all students so that
teachers have sufficient
devices to facilitate
lessons using technology.
Policies, Processes, &
Procedures
Critical Behavior 1
Policies outlined in the
district’s technology
implementation plan align
with year round,
differentiated professional
development resources for
teachers.
Critical Behavior 2
District procedures align
with targeted use of
devices for instructional
purposes and common
assessments.
Culture
Critical Behavior 1
Overall, teachers perceive
there is a culture of
continuous learning
through professional
development to deliver
consistent technology
infused lessons.
Critical Behavior 2
Teachers feel supported
and safe in taking
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 221
technological risks within
their classrooms.
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 222
Appendix G
Teacher Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles CA, 90089
You are invited to participate in a research study. Participation is voluntary and the information
included in this document explains the study. If any information is unclear, you are encouraged
to ask questions. This study has been approved by the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (Protocol Number: UP-19-00459).
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The study aims to understand a school district’s technology best practices which contribute to
high technology integration and high student achievement.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in the study, you will be asked to complete a survey about technology
practices in your classroom. At the conclusion of the survey, you will also be asked if you would
like to participate in a one-time one-on-one interview and/or a classroom observation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
No personal information will be obtained nor collected as part of this study. Identifiable
information such as your name, address, or other discernible information will not be collected.
Required language: The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of
Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The
HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
The Principal Investigator is Amy Marcoullier marcoull@usc.edu. The Faculty Advisor is
Kenneth Yates, Ed.D. kennetay@usc.edu. IRB CONTACT INFORMATION: University Park
Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 223
Appendix H
Technology Team Informed Consent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles CA, 90089
You are invited to participate in a research study. Participation is voluntary and the information
included in this document explains the study. If any information is unclear, you are encouraged
to ask questions. This study has been approved by the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (Protocol Number: UP-19-00459).
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The study aims to understand a school district’s technology best practices which contribute to
high technology integration and high student achievement.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in the study, you will be asked to complete a one-time one-on-one
interview.
CONFIDENTIALITY
No personal information will be obtained nor collected as part of this study. Identifiable
information such as your name, address, or other discernible information will not be collected.
Required language: The members of the research team, the funding agency and the University of
Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The
HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
The Principal Investigator is Amy Marcoullier marcoull@usc.edu. The Faculty Advisor is
Kenneth Yates, Ed.D. kennetay@usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 224
Appendix I
Immediate Evaluation Tool
Level 1: Reaction and Level 2: Learning
1. The training curriculum held my attention. (Engagement)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
2. I was responsible for my own learning by being involved in the training (Engagement)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
3. The training information is applicable to my daily job. (Relevance)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
4. I enjoyed the training course content. (Customer Satisfaction)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
5. I learned the necessary knowledge and skills from the training content to use in my job.
(Declarative Knowledge)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 225
6. I practiced necessary strategies during the training I can use in my job. (Procedural
Knowledge)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
7. I believe the training was worthwhile to my job responsibilities. (Attitude)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
8. I feel confident to apply the knowledge and skills I learned from the training to my daily
job. (Confidence)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
9. I intend to apply knowledge and skills learned from the training to my job.
(Commitment)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 226
Appendix J
Delayed Evaluation Tool
40 - 60 Days after training
Level 1: Reaction, Level 2: Learning, Level 3: Behavior, Level 4: Results
1. I have had the opportunity to use the course content in my job. (Relevance)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
2. Upon reflection, enrolling in this professional development training was a valuable use of
my time. (Customer Satisfaction)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
3. I have applied the knowledge and skills I learned in the training to my job. (Declarative
Knowledge)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
4. I have applied strategies I learned in the training to my job. (Procedural Knowledge)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
5. The training was a worthwhile experience. (Attitude)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
TECHNOLOGY: PROMISING PRACTICE 227
6. I know where to find additional support if I should need it now that I have returned to my
job. (Confidence)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
7. I have applied training concepts to my job. (Commitment)
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly disagree
8. How have you applied training principles to your daily work? (Behavior)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
9. What outcomes do you expect from your efforts? (Behavior)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10. What impact has the professional development training had on the organization?
(Results)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study utilizes Clark and Estes’ (2008) GAP Analysis framework to examine XYZ School District’s promising practice of sustaining high student achievement through high technology use. The purpose of the study is to learn how technology is utilized within the classroom for instructional purposes as well as how the technology integration plan may be replicated in different organizational contexts. A teacher survey, teacher and technology team interviews as well as classroom observations of technology implementation and analysis of pertinent documents comprised this mixed methods approach. Findings confirmed XYZ School District’s technology implementation to be a promising practice as all influences studied were found to be assets. Key characteristics of professional development training as well as classroom instruction and teacher practice were found to align with knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. This study offers tangible recommendations and considerations for other organizations to employ a similar technological initiative.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?
PDF
Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers
PDF
Instructional technology integration in a parochial school district: an evaluation study
PDF
Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices
PDF
College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study
PDF
A case study in student retention at a Northern California private Jewish day school: a gap analysis
PDF
Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners
PDF
Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study
PDF
A case study on influences of mainstream teachers' instructional decisions and perceptions of English learners in Hawai'i public secondary education
PDF
Implementation of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program in an urban secondary school: an improvement practice to address closing the achievement gap
PDF
A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers
PDF
Leveraging the principalship for instructional technology equity and access in two urban elementary schools
PDF
Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study
PDF
Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...
PDF
The challenges teachers face effectively implementing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula: an evaluation study
PDF
Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study
PDF
The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study
PDF
Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study
PDF
Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district
PDF
Equitable schooling for African American students: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Marcoullier, Amy
(author)
Core Title
Using technology to drive high academic achievement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
02/25/2020
Defense Date
02/25/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Academic Achievement,gap analysis,instructional tools,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,Technology,technology implementation
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Yates, Kenneth (
committee chair
), Maddox, Anthony (
committee member
), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (
committee member
)
Creator Email
amycmarcoullier@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-275096
Unique identifier
UC11674880
Identifier
etd-Marcoullie-8211.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-275096 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Marcoullie-8211.pdf
Dmrecord
275096
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Marcoullier, Amy
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
gap analysis
instructional tools
professional development
technology implementation