University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Effective implementation of technology in elementary schools: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Effective implementation of technology in elementary schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 1

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS:
AN EVALUATION STUDY

by

Julie Aguirre

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

December 2019

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 2

DEDICATION
To Jose, Mariella, Nathalia, and Gabriella:
“Love challenges, be intrigued, enjoy effort, and keep on learning.”
- Carol Dweck
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A dissertation is not completed in isolation and the support of those around me
has been invaluable. I am grateful to Dr. Angela Hassan, my Dissertation Committee
chair, and Dr. Susanne Foulk for their tireless review of my dissertation drafts. The two
additional members of my Dissertation Committee, Dr. Stephen Aguilar and Dr. Stella
Kemp, helped me identify more effective ways to communicate the process I followed
and the information I discovered during this process. I am also deeply grateful to the
professors I had throughout the course of the Organizational Change and Leadership
program. Thank you Dr. Courtney Malloy for sharing your love of statistics and Dr.
Alexandra Wilcox for challenging my perspectives on leadership. Thank you also to Dr.
Brandon Martinez and Dr. Doug Lynch for modeling “keeping the main thing, the main
thing.” To all Rossier faculty, know that I am truly grateful.
This study would not have been possible without the support of the Bay Area
School District Superintendent and principals who provided access to the teachers.
Thank you also to the teachers who participated in the surveys, interviews, and classroom
visits. The depth and thoughtfulness of your responses made this investigation possible.
Finally, thank you to the future Dr. Thomas Datro. You are not only a source of
inspiration for persistence and motivation; you are an amazing thought partner and friend.
It has been an honor to complete this program with you.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 4

Table of Contents
DEDICATION 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
LIST OF TABLES 7
LIST OF FIGURES 9
ABSTRACT 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 11
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 11
Organizational Context and Mission 11
Organizational Goal 12
Related Literature 13
Importance of the Evaluation 17
Description of Stakeholder Groups 17
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals 18
Stakeholder Group for the Study 19
Purpose of the Project and Questions 20
Methodological Framework 21
Definitions 21
Organization of the Project 22
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 24
Influences on the Problem of Practice 24
Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs About Technology 25
Teachers’ Perceptions of Self-Efficacy and Technology 25
Barriers to Implementation 26
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus 27
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Framework 28
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 29
Knowledge and Skills 29
Motivation 33
Organization 37
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context 43
Conclusion 48
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 5

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 49
Participating Stakeholders 49
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale 49
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale 50
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 50
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale 51
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale 51
Observation Sampling Strategy and Rationale 52
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 52
Interviews 53
Observation 55
Documents and Artifacts 57
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 57
Surveys 57
Data Analysis 58
Credibility and Trustworthiness 59
Validity and Reliability 60
Ethics 62
Limitations and Delimitations 63
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 65
Participating Stakeholders 66
Determination of Assets and Needs 67
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 69
Factual Knowledge 69
Conceptual Knowledge 71
Procedural Knowledge 73
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 76
Value 76
Self-Efficacy 78
Results and Findings for Organization Causes 81
Cultural Models 81
Cultural Settings 87
Summary of Validated Influences 92
Knowledge 92
Motivation 92
Organization 93
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 6

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION & FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS 94
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 95
Knowledge Recommendations 95
Motivation Recommendations 101
Organization Recommendations 105
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 111
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 111
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 112
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 113
Level 3: Behavior 114
Level 2: Learning 118
Level 1: Reaction 122
Data Analysis and Reporting 124
Summary 125
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 126
Recommendations for Future Research 127
Conclusion 128
References 130
APPENDIX A: Quantitative Survey (Phase I) 143
APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol (Phase II) 146
APPENDIX C: Observation Protocol (Phase III) 149
APPENDIX D: Sample Post-Training Survey Items Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and
2 151
APPENDIX E: Sample Blended Evaluation Items Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1, 2, 3,
and 4 153

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 18
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis 32
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis 36
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis 41
Table 5: Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Level of Familiarity with SAMR
Model 69
Table 6: Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Classification of
Integrating Technology Activity 74
Table 7: Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Technology Preparing
Students 77
Table 8: Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Comfort with Integrating
Technology Activity 79
Table 9: Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Level of Agreement
About Technology Creating Better Prepared Citizens 82
Table 10: Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Accessibility of
Instructional Technology 84
Table 11: Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Familiarity and Use of
Integrating Technology 88
Table 12: Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Level of Agreement
About of Integrating Technology Activity 90
Table 13: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 92
Table 14: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 92
Table 15: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 93
Table 16: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 95
Table 17: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 102
Table 18: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 105
Table 19: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 113
Table 20: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 114
Table 21: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 116
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 8

Table 22: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 120
Table 23: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 122
Table 24: Integration of Technology Progress 124

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 9

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 44
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 10

ABSTRACT
The evidence highlights that California is struggling to achieve the State Superintendent
of Public Instruction’s vision for education technology to be “as effective and productive
a tool in the school environment as it is in the world beyond schools” (A Blueprint for
Great Schools, 2011, p.12). The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which
Bay Area School District (BASD) is meeting its goals with respect to technology
integration. Questions that guided the evaluation study address the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organization influences for classroom teachers within the school district.
Based on a review of the literature, data collection included classroom teacher
participation in an online survey followed by interviews and classroom observations as
well as a lesson plan review. Analysis of the data demonstrated a need for professional
development systems around the integration of technology into instruction. The results
indicate that professional development, if provided, typically consists of a one-session
presentation without additional support. On this basis, it is recommended that BASD
implement a professional development system that consists of professional development
sessions, which include structured planning time and coaching support to guide effective
integration over the course of the school year. Further research is needed to identify
other factors that could strengthen the integration of technology into classroom
instruction.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 11

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
The utilization of technology for instructional purposes is rapidly gaining
importance in the education field. As schools strive to develop students into creators of
media rather than just consumers, effective implementation of technology in elementary
schools is becoming an area of concern. The evidence highlights that California is
struggling to achieve the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s vision for education
technology to be “as effective and productive a tool in the school environment as it is in
the world beyond schools” (A Blueprint for Great Schools, 2011, p.12). As a result,
schools must prepare teachers to instruct the technology skills required to be successful
with the Common Core State Standards (Empowering Learning: A Blueprint for
California Educational Technology, 2014). A review of the literature strongly suggests a
school’s resources and teachers primarily influence the effectiveness of technology
implementation in the classroom.
Organizational Context and Mission
Bay Area School District (BASD), a pseudonym, is a kindergarten through
eighth-grade elementary school district located in the north bay area of California. The
district’s mission is to create learning centers that develop students to be successful in a
global economy and to raise academic achievement. Additionally, the district’s vision
states the district will engage students in order to inspire them to be critical thinkers who
embrace diversity, curiosity, and innovation throughout their lives. According to
Educational Data Partnership (2018), during the 2017-2018 school year, BASD
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 12

demographics included students with the following ethnicities: 12.8% Asian, 37.3%
Hispanic or Latino, 19.8% White, 3.6% Two or More Races, and 8.0% None Reported.
During the 2016-2017 school year, staff ethnicities included: 5.7% Asian, 8.6% Hispanic
or Latino, 57.6% White, 0.9% Two or More Races, and 24% None Reported. Also
important to note is that 38.4% of students qualify for Free or Reduced Lunch, 27.4% of
students are English Learners, and 5% of students have been Reclassified Fluent English
Proficient (Educational Data Partnership, 2018).
The school district consists of six schools including five elementary schools and
one middle school. Based on the 2017 California Assessment of Student Performance
and Progress (CAASPP) assessment results, 52% of students met or exceeded the
standard overall in English Language Arts while 48% nearly met or did not meet the
standard. In Mathematics, 49% of students met or exceeded the standard while 51% of
students nearly met or did not meet the overall standard.
Organizational Goal
Bay Area School District has three technology goals: 1) join the Silicon Valley
Math Initiative (SVMI) to address the need for a pedagogical shift in the teaching of
Mathematics and the Common Core State Standards, 2) student demonstration of 21st
Century skills and mastery of content through a variety of student projects, and 3)
provide professional development to support increasing use of Google Apps for
Education (GAFE). These goals were established in June 2014 as part of a three-year
implementation plan under the previous Superintendent. The goals were monitored
through the development of objectives and benchmarks related to each goal. Each goal
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 13

also included an implementation plan outlining the necessary activities, the person
responsible, means for monitoring and evaluation, as well as the evaluation instrument.
As the timeline on this plan has passed, the current Superintendent has a team drafting a
new implementation plan to address technology needs within the district. Evaluating the
organization’s performance will enable stakeholders to determine the effectiveness of the
previous plan as well as monitoring the school district’s progress towards equitable
access to learning technologies for all staff and students.
Related Literature
Students of color attending low-income schools are more at risk for failure due to
lack of access to technology (Brown, 2000; Huang & Russell, 2006). Research shows the
ability to access technology at home and at school, in addition to the types of tasks
performed utilizing technology, directly affect student achievement (Carr, 2013). In a
2006 study conducted on primary school students by Judge, Puckett, and Bell, the ability
to access computers at home and at school was positively correlated with academic
achievement. Specifically, access to a home computer, a computer area in the classroom,
frequent Internet access, and the ability to become proficient in computer skills provided
benefits for low-income students. These differences in student access to technology at
school and at home affect how children experience computers. Schools serving students
of low socioeconomic status are more likely to have the lowest access to, and most basic
usage of, new technology (Judge, Puckett, & Cabuk, 2004). The public’s perception of
technology is such that computer literacy is compared to basic literacy and Light (2001)
went as far as to state that computer access is frequently equated to automotive access.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 14

The disparity of access to technology is typically influenced by geography, income, and
race. Students in rural areas, specifically in young, minority, single-parent households,
are the least likely to have equitable access to technology (Kalyanpur & Kirmani, 2005).
Additionally, differences in access to technology appear to be driven more by income and
educational background than by race or ethnicity. The digital divide narrows as income
increases (Attewell, 2001) regardless of ethnicity.
Teacher instructional practices, and the ability to match instruction to students’
needs, directly affect the use of technology to provide equitable access to educational
resources (Brown, 2000). In schools where access to technology is equal, the
instructional goals differ. According to Becker (2000) students in low-income schools
typically utilize technology for lower-level tasks than more affluent students. A school's
economic factors can be tied to the way teachers use technology for instruction.
Specifically, teachers in low-income schools typically do not use technology to promote
higher-order thinking skills (Reinhart, Thomas, & Toriskie, 2011). This can be caused by
a variety of reasons. Teacher perceptions of their own self-efficacy related to technology
and implementation have a direct effect on student access to higher-order thinking skills
in relation to technological tasks (Morelock, 2016). Teachers who hold constructivist
views of technology in instruction were more likely to have two or more high-level
learning opportunities in their lessons (Hsu, 2016) while teachers who struggle to manage
behavioral challenges in the classroom struggle to integrate technology into instruction.
Frequently, technology is used as an incentive for good behavior rather than as an
instructional tool (Moore, Laffey, Espinosa, & Lodree, 2002). Teachers who are familiar
with technology in their personal lives are more likely to integrate technology into
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 15

instruction. The presence of technology alone does not guarantee access or effective
utilization for instruction (Judge, Puckett, & Cabuk, 2004). The major challenge in
classrooms today with respect to technology is to support students in learning and
actively engaging in the education process. Teachers must be properly trained and
motivated to use technology during instruction (Song, Kidd, & Owens, 2009). Teachers
frequently underestimate student access to technology or undervalue technology other
than computers. Often, teachers make negative comments about parental attitudes
towards technology by referring to them as digital babysitters or disparaging the lack of
access to traditional reading materials in favor of technological devices. Teachers in low
socioeconomic schools typically work on technology skills in isolation from other skills
and focus more on creating compliance than innovation (Henderson & Honan, 2008).
This discrepancy in instructional purpose reinforces the digital divide between students in
low socioeconomic areas and those in more affluent neighborhoods.
Research shows there are multiple barriers to equity with respect to technology in
schools with low-socioeconomic status students of color (Lee, 2013). Students can be
considered more at risk based on certain characteristics. These risk factors could include
poverty, different backgrounds or ethnicities, and English learners. These students are
less likely to reach their full potential based on low achievement, poor attendance, and
low socioeconomic status (Brown, 2000). Additionally, students in high-poverty schools
are more likely to use technology for drills related to reading and mathematics, while
students in low-poverty schools are more likely to use technology for Internet tasks.
Judge, Puckett, and Bell (2006) as well as Becker (2000) state it is important to note is
that these types of drills have not been connected to academic achievement. Research
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 16

also shows parent income and education are strongly related to a student’s ability to
access the Internet and technology at home. White and Asian American families of low
socioeconomic status are much more likely to own technology at home and have Internet
access than similar Hispanic and African American families. Low-income students may
be at a double disadvantage due to lack of access at home and school (Kalyanpur &
Kirmani, 2005). Technology usage in schools becomes even more critical for Hispanic
students who typically have less access at home, but many teachers are not prepared or
able to use technology effectively in their classrooms (Moore, Laffey, Espinosa, &
Lodree, 2002). There are differences in how technology is utilized based on social class;
specifically with respect to the relationship to information. Those with more affluence
tend to be creators of information while the less affluent tend to be consumers of
information (Reinhart, Thomas & Toriskie, 2011). Students with low socioeconomic
status are more likely to use technology for drill and kill style activities, which typically
alienates students from the school. Students with high socioeconomic status are more
likely to use technology for school assignments and email, which are more functional and
engaging (Attewell, 2001; Song, Kidd, & Owens, 2009). While the onus is on school
districts to provide appropriate training to support teachers in integrating effective
technology instruction in the classroom, ultimately teachers determine what role
technology will play in their classrooms. This can provide students with a launchpad into
college and career readiness or broaden the divide between socioeconomic groups.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 17

Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate the organization’s performance in relation to the
performance goal that over the course of the next three years, students in BASD will
demonstrate their ability to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of
digital tools and formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as
individuals and in collaboration with their peers for a variety of reasons. Multiple studies
found schools with high populations of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds,
as identified by participation in the free and reduced lunch program, had less access to
technology in the classroom (Brenner & Brill, 2016; Mitchell, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2016;
Pittman & Gaines, 2015). Reduced access to technology resources highlights the concern
that technology skills could become the newest achievement gap (Empowering Learning:
A Blueprint for California Educational Technology, 2014). This would make it even
more challenging for schools to reach the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s
vision for education technology. Furthermore, Mitchell, Wohleb, and Skinner (2016)
found when teachers had adequate training and access to technology they were more
willing to attempt integration into the classroom. Providing adequate resources and
training makes it possible to prepare all students for success in the workforce.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
At BASD, the stakeholders include administrators, instructional coaches,
classroom teachers, and students. Within the context of BASD, administrators are related
to the achievement of the organizational goal because they set the priority for technology
integration at the district or school site levels in relation to other district initiatives. There
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 18

are two types of instructional coaches within BASD: English Language Arts Coaches and
Mathematics Coaches. These instructional coaches contribute to the achievement of the
organizational goal in that they provide coaching and collaborative feedback to teachers
on their classroom instruction, including the integration of technology. Classroom
teachers determine when and how to provide students with access to meaningful ways to
use technology to increase academic achievement, which is directly related to the
organizational goal. Finally, students contribute to the organization’s goal in that they
are the ones who must apply themselves to make academic progress through the use of
learning technologies.
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Bay Area School District (BASD), a pseudonym, will raise academic achievement and engage
students in programs and curriculum that inspire them to be productive critical thinkers who
embrace diversity, curiosity, and innovation.
Organizational Performance Goal
Bay Area School District’s goal is that over the course of the next three years, students in BASD
will demonstrate their ability to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of
digital tools and formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and
in collaboration with their peers.
Instructional Coaches’ Goal Classroom Teachers’ Goal Students’ Goal
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 19

By June 2018, all Instructional
Coaches will facilitate the
development of a site-based
technology implementation
plan outlining how students
will use applications which
allow them to demonstrate
their learning in a variety of
ways including but not limited
to: podcasting, video creation,
presentations, blogs, website
creation, and web 2.0 tools as
measured by a presentation to
the School Board. .
By June 2018, all classroom
teachers will be trained and
able to apply the skills
necessary for students to
successfully communicate
their thoughts and ideas in
both written and verbal
formats as measured by
student-created work
presented at Presentation of
Learning events.

By June 2018, all students will
have access to learning
technologies that improve
student achievement as
measured by the California
Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, this study focuses on one stakeholder group: classroom teachers. This
stakeholder group was selected because teachers have direct control over the utilization
of technology within the classroom. Administrators can provide physical resources;
however, classroom teachers have direct control over when and how students utilize
those resources.
The stakeholder goal and measurable level of achievement were determined by
the researcher based on the existing technology goals within BASD’s technology plan.
Measures that will be used to track progress towards the goal include self-report surveys,
teacher interviews, and classroom observation data. It is important for classroom
teachers to achieve this goal in order for students to have equitable access to effective
learning technologies. If the stakeholder goal is not achieved, students will not have the
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 20

technological skills to be competitive in high school, college, or professional career.
Thus, the organization’s goal cannot be achieved if the stakeholder goal is not achieved.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which BASD is meeting its
goal that over the course of the next three years, students in BASD will demonstrate their
ability to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of digital tools and
formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and in
collaboration with their peers. The analysis will focus on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals. While a complete
performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the
stakeholder group to be focused on in this analysis is classroom teachers.
Questions that will guide the evaluation study that addresses knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organization influences for classroom teachers within the school
district include:
1. To what extent is Bay Area School District (BASD) meeting its goal that over the
course of the next three years, students in BASD will demonstrate their ability to
present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of digital tools and
formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and in
collaboration with their peers?
2. What are the classroom teacher’s knowledge and motivation related to the goal
that all classroom teachers will be able to be trained and able to apply the skills
necessary for students to successfully communicate their thoughts and ideas in
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 21

both written and verbal formats as measured by student-created work presented at
Presentation of Learning events?
3. What is the interaction between BASD culture and context and classroom teacher
knowledge and motivation in relation to achieving the goal that over the course of
the next three years, students in BASD will demonstrate their ability to present
acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of digital tools and formats by
analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and in
collaboration with their peers?
4. What are the recommendations for BASD practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources in relation to achieving the goal that over
the course of the next three years, students in BASD will demonstrate their ability
to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of digital tools and
formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and in
collaboration with their peers?
Methodological Framework
This project will employ a mixed-method data gathering and analysis. The
stakeholder’s current performance will be assessed by using surveys, interviews,
classroom observations, literature review, and content analysis. Research-based solutions
will be recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
Pedagogy: The study of the methods and activities of teaching (Pedagogy, n.d.).
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 22

Drill and kill: A colloquial term used in education to communicate repetitive, rote
practice of information that extinguishes motivation to learn the content (Heffernan,
2010).
Bloom’s Taxonomy: An educational framework used to define the continuum of
increasing complexity of cognitive tasks ranging from remembering to creating (Revised
Bloom's Taxonomy, n.d.).
Constructivist pedagogy: A philosophy of classroom instruction where instruction is
designed to address the existing knowledge, interests, and attitudes of the students. The
role of the classroom teacher is as a facilitator of student learning, rather than provider of
knowledge, including planned opportunities for peer interactions among the students
(Dangel, Guyton, & McIntyre, 2004).
Socioeconomic status: The social standing or class of an individual or group measured as
a combination of education, income and occupation. Differences in socioeconomic status
often are often related to inequities in access to resources, including educational
resources (American Psychological Association, 2019).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters were used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader
with the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the
integration of technology into elementary school instruction. The organization’s mission,
goals, and stakeholders as well as the review of the evaluation framework was provided.
Chapter Two provides a review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the
study. Topics of stakeholder knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 23

affect the integration of technology into instruction will be addressed. Chapter Three
details the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements to be examined as well as
methodology when it comes to the choice of participants, data collection, and analysis.
In Chapter Four, the data and results are described and analyzed. Chapter Five provides
recommendations for practice, based on data and literature, as well as recommendations
for an implementation and evaluation plan.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 24

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The utilization of technology for instructional purposes is rapidly gaining
importance in the education field. As schools strive to develop students into creators of
media rather than just consumers, effective implementation of technology is an area that
should be examined in elementary schools. A review of the literature strongly suggests a
school’s resources and teachers primarily influence the effectiveness of technology
implementation in the classroom. This review will first discuss the importance of a
teacher’s knowledge and skills on his or her ability to integrate technology into
instruction. Next, it will review how motivation affects a teacher’s willingness to
integrate technology. Finally, it will discuss how organizational barriers and supports can
influence teachers in integrating technology into instruction. Following the general
literature, the chapter will present a methodological framework addressing the knowledge
and skills as well as the motivation required to effectively integrate technology into
instruction.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
This review covers literature under three topic areas that emerged from the review
process. These topic areas are teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology, teachers’
perceptions of self-efficacy and technology, and barriers to implementation. Although
the literature presented here has been applied to a variety of contexts, this review focuses
primarily on the literature’s application of the problem of effective implementation of
technology in the context of elementary schools.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 25

Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs About Technology
According to research, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology have a
significant impact on their ability to successfully integrate technology into their
instruction. In a study conducted by Hsu (2016), a correlation was found where teachers
with constructivist pedagogical beliefs about technology, who place a positive value on
technology, and who have two or more practices of high-level learning in their
classrooms are more likely to successfully integrate technology into their instruction.
Pittman and Gaines (2015) conducted a similar survey of 218 third, fourth, and fifth-
grade teachers in Pasco County, Florida regarding factors related to technology
integration. Their survey results revealed teachers’ attitude towards technology was the
most indicative of the level of integration in the classroom. Similarly, Varol (2013)
studied 100 elementary teachers in eastern Turkey by measuring teachers’ knowledge of
information and communication technology. The researcher found teachers felt more
confident when using technology to search the internet and the least confident when
designing a website. Additionally, during instruction teachers demonstrated low
knowledge and low levels of usage of information and communication technology.
Based on the above research, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology directly
affect the problem of the effective implementation of technology in the context of
elementary schools. In addition to their beliefs about technology, teachers’ perceptions
of self-efficacy and technology affect integration into instruction as well.
Teachers’ Perceptions of Self-Efficacy and Technology
Multiple studies show teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy and technology play a
strong role in the integration of technology in the classroom. With respect to teachers in
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 26

their second through fourth year of teaching, Brenner and Brill (2016) conducted a
mixed-method study where the majority of participants identified themselves as
proficient users of technology in this study. Their findings verify the findings of
Mitchell, Wohleb, and Skinner (2016) who found that early career teachers are more
confident in their abilities to integrate technology in the classroom. Additionally,
Franklin (2007) studied early career teachers, identifying nearly 77% of participants who
held constructivist views of technology while 84% stated they were well or very well
prepared to teach with computers. As stated by the researcher, feeling confident with
technology for personal use builds teacher efficacy for using technology in the classroom,
but does not inherently mean the teacher can integrate technology into instruction. In
another study using a teacher survey conducted by Rohaan, Taconis, and Jochems (2012),
354 primary teachers from The Netherlands responded to questions regarding their self-
efficacy with technology teaching. The researchers found a strong positive correlation
between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitude towards technology. Additionally, teachers
with strong self-efficacy and a positive attitude were more likely to increase the
frequency of technology instruction in the classroom. These studies indicate teachers’
perceptions of their own self-efficacy directly affects their willingness and confidence to
integrate technology into instruction. In addition to teachers’ self-efficacy, there are
many other barriers to the implementation of technology in the classroom.
Barriers to Implementation
Research reveals there are multiple barriers to the implementation of technology
in classroom instruction. Teachers reported a lack of time and a lack of resources as the
main barriers to technology integration to multiple researchers (Brenner & Brill, 2016;
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 27

Mitchell, Wohleb, & Skinner, 2016). Additionally, Pittman and Gaines (2015) found
while technology is available in the classroom, frequently it is inadequate to meet the
demands of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s vision for education
technology to be “as effective and productive a tool in the school environment as it is in
the world beyond schools” (A Blueprint for Great Schools, 2011, p.12 ). The researchers
also cited inadequate professional development for teachers as a barrier to
implementation of technology in the classroom (2015), which demonstrates that teachers
are inadequately prepared to implement technology on par with the level of rigor
demanded by the Common Core State Standards. Teachers must be adequately prepared
to support students in developing their technological skills if schools are to impact the
problem of the technology implementation gap.
Role of Stakeholder Group of Focus
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018), kindergarten and elementary
school teachers are responsible for teaching young children basic subjects in order to
prepare them for future schooling. These subjects may include reading and mathematics
as well as social studies and science. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018) continues
that some teachers use technology in their classroom to support instruction and
communicate with parents and that teachers must be comfortable with using and learning
new technology. As schools strive to develop students as creators of media rather than
just consumers, effective implementation of technology in elementary schools is
becoming an area of concern. Schools must prepare teachers to instruct the technology
skills required to be successful with the Common Core State Standards (Empowering
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 28

Learning: A Blueprint for California Educational Technology, 2014) by addressing their
knowledge of instructional technology, motivation to integrate technology into the
classroom, and organizational supports and barriers that may affect teachers’ ability to
integrate technology successfully.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Framework
A conceptual framework refers to the concepts and beliefs held by the researcher
that influences and informs the research design. According to Maxwell (2013), a
conceptual framework is a tentative theory used to plan the design of the study and
explain the reasons behind what is happening in the situation being studied. Maxwell
(2013) continues that the function of the conceptual framework is to inform the
development of research goals and questions as well as identifying appropriate methods
and potential threats to validity. Ultimately, the conceptual framework is built from
existing literature and helps the researcher design the most effective way to construct the
study. This conceptual framework is based on the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
model for addressing gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Clark and Estes (2008) explain that individuals combine motivation and knowledge
influences to achieve goals within the structure provided by the organization. Each
combination of these variables is an opportunity for individuals to become more
motivated and strive towards their goals or opportunities for potential pitfalls where the
individuals may not reach goal completion.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 29

Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
When considering an employee’s ability to implement change and improve
performance, three areas must be considered: employees’ knowledge and skills, their
motivation to achieve the goal, and organizational barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark
and Estes (2008) assert that employees are valuable resources worthy of investment in the
form of knowledge and skills. Furthermore, organizations must be willing to improve the
management, development, and support of individuals to make the organization
successful. One way to accomplish these improvements is to conduct a knowledge gap
analysis to determine if individuals know how to achieve their goals. Identifying these
gaps can be challenging because people are often unaware of, or reluctant to admit, areas
of weakness. This is supported by Rueda (2011) who discusses the importance of
identifying the knowledge employees require to achieve their goals as well as the
knowledge required of supervisors to provide adequate support and feedback to their
subordinates.
Two frameworks for classifying knowledge include Bloom’s Taxonomy and the
four types of knowledge highlighted by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). The first type
of knowledge includes factual knowledge or the basic facts required to understand or
solve a problem in an area. The second type is conceptual knowledge, which consists of
categories, classifications, theories, or models. The third type is procedural knowledge or
how to do something and the fourth type is metacognitive knowledge or awareness of
one’s own thoughts and thought processes. These descriptors are used to classify the
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 30

types of knowledge required for individuals to be successful in implementing change and
improving performance.
This review of literature focuses on knowledge-related influences that are
pertinent to the achievement of Bay Area School District’s goal that by June 2018, all
classroom teachers will be able to measure the level of impact on student outcomes
through technology-based activities using the substitution, augmentation, modification,
and redefinition (SAMR) model. Two knowledge influences required for classroom
teachers to be successful with this goal include 1) SAMR; and 2) Technological,
Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge. Knowledge of SAMR is a prerequisite to
accomplishing the stakeholder goal while technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge are required to be successful educators.
Declarative knowledge: Procedural and factual. According to Puentedura
(2014), the SAMR model is a way for teachers to evaluate how they integrate technology
into instruction, which supports student facility with technology. A substitution activity
describes when technology is a direct substitute for a tool with no change in the function
of the activity, such as taking notes on a device instead of using paper. Augmentation
describes when the direct substitution leads to a functional improvement, like including
direct links to online sources when taking notes. Modification of note-taking could
include using an online resource to curate resources for a paper. One example of
redefinition could be collaborating digitally using a shared notebook to produce an online
article or video. The SAMR model aligns to Bloom’s Taxonomy, a model with which
most teachers are familiar. The two lower levels of SAMR, substitution and
augmentation, connect with the three lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy: remember,
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 31

understand, and apply. The two higher levels of SAMR, modification and redefinition,
connect with the upper levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy: analyze, evaluate, and create. This
alignment can be used to provide teachers with a framework to better understand the
levels of SAMR and identify ways to integrate technology into instruction. Researchers
Hamilton, Rosenberg, and Akcaoglu (2016) note the SAMR model has the potential for
guiding teachers in developing plans for differentiated products. However, in the absence
of context, the SAMR model may underestimate the complexity of integrating technology
into instruction. For a more comprehensive view, teachers’ technological, pedagogical,
and content knowledge must be considered.
Declarative Knowledge: Technological, Pedagogical, and Content. Of the
multiple types of declarative knowledge required for educators to be successful in the
classroom, technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge are the most significant
(Chai, Joyce Hwee, & Chin-Chung, 2010; Rohaan, Taconis, & Jochems, 2010, 2012;
Sahin, 2011). Technological knowledge refers to a teacher’s ability to identify subjects
that can be enhanced through the use of instructional technology as well as the teacher’s
personal knowledge of how to utilize technology (Sahin, 2011). Pedagogical knowledge
is a teacher’s understanding of how to manage students within the classroom as well as
understanding different models of instruction including problem-based learning and
project-based learning and inquiry-based learning (Chai, Joyce Hwee, & Chin-Chung,
2010). The final knowledge area examined is content knowledge. This refers to a
teacher’s understanding of the subject matter he or she is expected to teach within the
scope and sequence of the course (Chai, Joyce Hwee, & Chin-Chung, 2010). These types
of knowledge connect with the goal of technology integration because research shows if
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 32

teachers are not confident in each area of knowledge they are unlikely to attempt
integration (Moore, Laffey, Espinosa, & Lodree, 2002).
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
Bay Area School District (BASD), a pseudonym, will raise academic achievement and engage
students in programs and curriculum that inspire them to be productive critical thinkers who
embrace diversity, curiosity, and innovation.
Organizational Global Goal
Bay Area School District’s goal is that over the course of the next three years, students in BASD
will demonstrate their ability to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of
digital tools and formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and
in collaboration with their peers.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2018, all classroom teachers are trained and able to apply the skills necessary for
students to successfully communicate their thoughts and ideas in both written and verbal
formats as measured by student-created work presented at Presentation of Learning events.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers need to know the
components of the SAMR
model and understand how to
apply them to instruction.
Declarative (Factual &
Conceptual)

Written survey item:
Classify instructional
activities utilizing the SAMR
model.
Teachers need to know how to
integrate technology,
pedagogy, and content into a
lesson.
Declarative (Conceptual) Teachers asked to submit
lesson plans demonstrating
student use of classroom
technology.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 33

Motivation
Motivation is the process that allows individuals to begin working towards a goal
and persevere until the goal is reached (Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011) suggests that
motivation is comprised of three components: active choice, persistence, and effort.
Active choice refers to an individual’s choice to participate in an activity. Persistence is
one's commitment to continue participating in the activity until completion, and effort is
the willingness to apply the required work to be successful. There are many theories
related to motivation including self-efficacy and competency beliefs, attribution and
control beliefs, values, and goals (Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) explain that
individuals internally combine motivation and knowledge variables to achieve goals.
Each combination of these variables is an opportunity for individuals to become more
motivated and strive towards their goals or opportunities for potential pitfalls where the
individuals may not reach goal completion. For this reason, leaders must investigate
beyond the knowledge required to complete a task and examine the motivational
components.
This review of literature focuses on motivation-related influences that are
pertinent to the achievement of Bay Area School District (BASD)’s goal that all
classroom teachers will be able to measure the level of impact on student outcomes
through technology-based activities. While many motivational theories apply to
education and instruction, two theories that are particularly related to this goal include
Self-Efficacy Theory and Expectancy-Value Theory.
Expectancy-Value Theory. Expectancy-Value Theory links individuals’
choices to two beliefs: the expectations for success and the value the individual attaches
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 34

to the available options (Eccles, 2006). These two beliefs can be influenced by cultural
norms, experiences, and attitudes that are commonly linked with an achievement such as
the individual or family placing value on doing well in school (Pomerantz & Grolnick,
2017). Once an individual confirms he or she has the knowledge and skills to perform
the task, and will more likely be successful at the task, he or she must evaluate the level
of motivation required to complete the task. The desire to perform the task can be broken
down into three types of value: intrinsic value, attainment value, and utility value (Eccles,
2006). According to Eccles (2006), intrinsic value speaks to the individual's personal
motivation to complete the task based on the enjoyment he or she anticipates receiving
from performing it. Attainment value and utility value are related in that attainment
value is what the individual anticipates gaining out of task completion and utility value is
how the task can be used to meet the individual’s needs. Additionally, Pintrich (2003)
discusses the relationship between efficacy and value. An individual’s beliefs about
value may affect the choice to engage in an activity or not while beliefs about efficacy
may affect the level of success experienced once the individual is engaged in the activity.
This is important in relation to BASD’s stakeholder goal because once teachers choose to
attempt technology integration the level of effort they are willing to apply to be
successful could significantly impact outcomes for students.
In a study conducted by Mirzajani, Mahmud, Fauzi, and Wong (2016),
researchers attempted to investigate factors contributing to the lack of technology
integration into instruction. Some of the causes identified included educator stress,
limited experience with technology, lack of tools, not understanding the benefits of
technology, limited opportunity for regular use of technology, and limited skills or lack
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 35

of confidence with technology. Several of these causes are related to the teachers’
perceived value of technology in education as well as expectations for success. When
teachers do not receive adequate training, access to technology, or adequate support for
technology integration, they are less likely to value technological resources and less
likely to invest the time required to build proficiency with integrating technology into
instruction. Kafyulilo and Keengwe (2014) also found that teachers were more likely to
use technology for administrative tasks than for instructional tasks. One possible reason
is that teachers understand the value of technology for accomplishing administrative tasks
and they need more training and support with identifying the value of technology for
instructional tasks. Many teachers use technology for completing administrative tasks in
their personal lives, such as checking email or writing a letter. However, they may have
less experience with using technology to develop new skills. Afshari, Bakar, Luan,
Samah, and Fooi (2009) identified similar findings in a study of factors that influence
educators’ decision to integrate technology into instruction. Successful integration of
technology into instruction requires pedagogical, psychological and cognitive barriers to
be removed. A shift in values associated with the transition from constructivist teaching
philosophies to constructivist philosophies leads to an increased likelihood of technology
integration into instruction. Also, the value of integration of technology must be
supported by the site principal and passed through teacher leaders who shift the culture of
instruction and become agents of change within the school.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 36

Table 3
Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
Bay Area School District (BASD), a pseudonym, will raise academic achievement and engage
students in programs and curriculum that inspire them to be productive critical thinkers who
embrace diversity, curiosity, and innovation.
Organizational Global Goal
Bay Area School District’s goal is that over the course of the next three years, students in
BASD will demonstrate their ability to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety
of digital tools and formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals
and in collaboration with their peers.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2018, all classroom teachers will be trained and able to apply the skills necessary for
students to successfully communicate their thoughts and ideas in both written and verbal
formats as measured by student-created work presented at Presentation of Learning events..
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Influence Assessment
Self-Efficacy - Teachers need to believe they
are capable of implementing technology-based
activities in the classroom.
Written survey item:
I feel comfortable planning technology-based
activities for the classroom. (4-point Likert
scale)
I feel comfortable using technology-based
activities in the classroom. (4-point Likert
scale)

Interview item:
Describe the challenges of incorporating
technology into instruction.
Tell me about the supports teachers need to
successfully integrate technology into
instruction.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 37

Value - Teachers need to believe they are
more effective when they are able to integrate
technology-based activities.
Written survey item:
Technology helps students become better
prepared to be producers of information in
society. (4-point Likert scale)

Interview item:
Describe the ways you have used technology
to enhance instruction.

Organization
Organizational barriers such as missing tools, inadequate facilities, or unclear
policies and procedures can hinder employees from accomplishing organizational goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008). When employees have the knowledge and motivation required to
complete a task, Clark and Estes (2008) assert that organizational barriers should be
examined. By conducting a gap analysis, organizational leaders can determine if
organizational barriers are at fault. In addition to the required tools and facilities,
organizations must also have clearly defined value streams and chains to communicate
information across teams and divisions within the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Rueda (2011) discusses these value streams and chains in terms of organizational culture.
Cultural models describe how groups of individuals define, using a shared mental model,
how the organization should work. These models tend to be invisible and difficult to
define, even by members within the group. Cultural settings, on the other hand, are
visible aspects of the organization including the participants, location, and tasks where
one can observe aspects of the cultural model in action (Rueda, 2011).
This review of literature focuses on organization related influences that are
pertinent to the achievement of Bay Area School District’s goal that by June 2018, all
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 38

classroom teachers will be able to measure the level of impact on student outcomes
through technology-based activities using the SAMR model. Two cultural model
influences required for classroom teachers to be successful with this goal include: 1)
accepting the benefits of technology and 2) a general willingness to adjust instruction to
incorporate technology. Two cultural setting influences that strongly affect the
integration of technology into instruction include 1) adequate planning time and 2)
examples of the levels of technology integration within the SAMR model.
Cultural model: Accepting the benefits of technology. One of the
organizational barriers that must be overcome is the cultural model that technology can
be beneficial for teachers and students. Carver (2016) found that, when adequate
technology resources were available, teachers were more likely to utilize technology for
increasing student engagement and understanding than for evaluating or generating
content. This is in alignment with findings by Attewell (2001) who identified a second-
level digital divide: what teachers and students do with technology once they have access.
Schools and districts who are willing to accept the benefits of technology beyond the
basic “drill and kill” are more likely to prepare their students for more advanced
outcomes. Li, Yamaguchi, and Takada (2018) identified that teachers’ perceptions of the
benefits of technology, along with their perceived confidence with technology, strongly
affect the likelihood of integration of technology into instruction. Additionally, I-Hua,
Chin, and Cheng-Mei (2008) found that principals’ technology leadership is strongly
correlated with teacher integration of technology during instruction. Therefore,
organizations need to provide more than just access to technology, but also the policies
and procedures that prioritize the integration of technology into instruction.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 39

Cultural model: General willingness to adjust instruction to incorporate
technology. In addition to principals providing leadership in the area of technology
integration, principals must also provide support and direction with respect to
differentiating instruction (Hertberg-Davis & Brighton, 2006). The researchers found
that teachers’ attitudes regarding adjusting instruction strongly reflected the attitudes of
their site administrators. When principals provided classroom teachers with resources
and emotional support to adjust their instruction, the teachers were more likely to attempt
the change. Examples of resources that led to shifts in instruction included extra
planning time, observation of lessons, and constructive feedback. In general, Hertberg-
Davis and Brighton (2006) found that classroom teachers were able to effectively adjust
their instruction when site administrators believed in the change and supported teachers
in the change process. One key way administrators can provide support for classroom
teachers is through adequate planning time.
Cultural setting: Adequate planning time. When planning for instruction,
classroom teachers need adequate time to prepare instructional materials and reflect on
the effectiveness of previous instruction. Wepner and Tao (2002) advocate for several
administrative responsibilities including providing teachers with sufficient planning time
in addition to professional development around technology. They continue that the
planning time should also include access to a technology lead teacher or technology
expert to help teachers most effectively integrate technology into their lesson planning
and instruction. A survey conducted by Hernández-Ramos (2005) identified that a
majority of teachers indicated a need for adequate planning time to collaborate with
support staff around the effective integration of technology during instruction. When
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 40

schools and districts are able to provide this planning time, teachers are better prepared to
understand the expectations around technology integration in the classroom.
Cultural setting: Examples of the levels of technology integration within the
SAMR model. In order for classroom teachers to effectively integrate technology into
instruction, they must develop a mental model of each level of SAMR lesson. Du,
Nuzzolo, and Alonso-Álvarez (2016) found that reading a manual alone was not
sufficient to ensure professionals were able to execute a skill with fidelity. In fact, only
31% of participants were able to successfully meet the criterion based off of paper
manual training alone. When participants were provided with additional training in the
form of video modeling, all participants were able to successfully meet the criterion.
Based on this information, classroom teachers will be better equipped to integrate
technology with fidelity to each of the SAMR levels if they understand both the list of
criteria for each level as well as having a visual model to which to compare their
instruction (Du, Nuzzolo, & Alonso-Álvarez, 2016). Additionally, Braaksma,
Rijlaarsdam, and van (2002) found that both struggling learners and strong learners
benefit from observational learning. When struggling learners were able to focus on
observing a task performed, they were more likely to be able to replicate the task
themselves. Based on this information, providing teachers with effective models at each
of the SAMR levels will lead to classroom teachers who are better prepared for
independently executing lessons with fidelity and a comparable level of rigor across the
school and district.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 41

Table 4
Organizational Influences and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
Bay Area School District (BASD), a pseudonym, will raise academic achievement and engage
students in programs and curriculum that inspire them to be productive critical thinkers who
embrace diversity, curiosity, and innovation.
Organizational Global Goal
Bay Area School District’s goal is that over the course of the next three years, students in
BASD will demonstrate their ability to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety
of digital tools and formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals
and in collaboration with their peers.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2018, all classroom teachers will be trained and able to apply the skills necessary for
students to successfully communicate their thoughts and ideas in both written and verbal
formats as measured by student-created work presented at Presentation of Learning events.
Assumed
Organizational
Influences
Organizational
Influence
Assessment
Research-Based
Recommendation
or Solution
Principle
Proposed Solution
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
Benefits of
Technology
The organization
needs a culture that
technology can help
students more
effectively access
content and become
better-prepared
citizens.
Classroom teacher
survey, Review of
district technology
policies
Effective
organizations ensure
that organizational
messages, rewards,
policies, and
procedures that
govern the work of
the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Ensure all
professional
development
opportunities include
explicit messaging on
how technology can
help students more
effectively access the
content and become
better-prepared
citizens.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 42

Cultural Model
Influence 2:
Technology
Integration
The organization
needs to have a
culture of
willingness to adjust
instruction in order
to incorporate
technology into
instruction.
Classroom teacher
survey, Review of
district technology
policies
Effective change
begins by addressing
motivation
influencers; it ensures
the group knows why
it needs to change. It
then addresses
organizational
barriers and then
knowledge and skills
needs (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Early adopters and
instructional coaches
will share the benefits
of incorporating
instructional
technology into
instruction, and the
increases in student
outcomes, during
professional
development
opportunities.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Planning Time
The organization
needs to give
teachers enough
non-instructional
time to collaborate
and reflect on
integrating
technology into
instruction.
Classroom teacher
survey, Review of
district technology
policies
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 resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Teachers will be
provided with regular,
self-directed, non-
instructional work
time over the course
of the school year to
collaborate and reflect
on integrating
technology into
instruction.
Cultural Setting
Influence 2:
Level of Integration
The organization
needs models of
effective technology
integration at each of
the SAMR levels so
teachers know what
each level “looks
like.”
Classroom teacher
survey, Review of
district technology
policies
Targeting training and
instruction between
the individual’s
independent
performance level and
their level of assisted
performance
promotes optimal
learning (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Provide training to
help teachers develop
a mental model for
what technology
integration looks like
at each of the SAMR
levels.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 43

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context
The essential knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences were
identified through a review of relevant literature related to technology in elementary
education. Within the context of this study, the identified influences include knowledge
of the SAMR model and knowledge of pedagogy related to technology, motivation to
integrate technology into instruction, and organizational supports in the form of resources
to support integration into instruction.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 44

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.
The previous figure, Figure 1. Conceptual Framework, addresses the
relationship between BASD and classroom teachers as well as their relationship to the
stakeholder goal that by June 2018, all classroom teachers will be able to measure the
level of impact on student outcomes through technology-based activities using the
Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 45

The large blue circle refers to two cultural settings and cultural models within
BASD. The essential cultural setting influences that will be considered during the study
include planning time and level of technology integration. Both influences are related to
the resources provided to classroom teachers. According to Wisdom et al., (2007), the
main barriers to equitable access to technology include limited school resources including
money and teacher time. The researchers found insufficient time to complete teacher
training, or teachers’ inability to see technology integration as a useful resource, can
significantly impact students’ access to technology. Teachers need enough non-
instructional planning time to collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into
instruction and they need models of effective technology integration at each of the
SAMR levels to know what each level “looks like” based on observational learning.
Braaksma, Rijlaarsdam, and van (2002) found that both struggling learners and strong
learners benefit from observational learning. When struggling learners were able to focus
on observing a task performed, they were more likely to be able to replicate the task
themselves. Based on this information, providing teachers with effective models at each
of the SAMR levels will lead to classroom teachers who are better prepared for
independently executing lessons with fidelity and a comparable level of rigor across the
school and district.
The cultural models within BASD must also be addressed in order to have a better
understanding of the context in which the study is conducted. Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2001) state cultural models are the shared understanding of how things work or should
work. The cultural model influences to be addressed in this study include the benefits of
technology and technology integration. Specifically, there needs to be a general
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 46

acceptance, across the district as well as at the school site and individual classroom
teacher levels, that technology can help students more effectively access content and
become better-prepared citizens. Also, there needs to be a general willingness to adjust
instruction in order to incorporate technology into instruction at each of organizational
levels because teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about technology directly affect the
effectiveness of their technology implementation (Varol, 2013) and a correlation was
found where teachers who place a positive value on technology are more likely to attempt
to successfully integrate technology into their instruction (Hsu, 2016).
The smaller orange circle within the blue circle represents the classroom teacher
stakeholder group. The teachers are strongly influenced by the overall orange
organizational culture; however, they have their own knowledge and motivations that
must be considered. In order to achieve the goal that by June 2018, all classroom
teachers will be able to measure the level of impact on student outcomes through
technology-based activities using the SAMR model, teachers must have specific types of
knowledge. The classroom teacher knowledge influences considered within this study
include knowledge of the SAMR model and technological, pedagogical, and content
knowledge. These knowledge areas connect with the goal of technology integration
because research shows if teachers are not confident in each area of knowledge they are
unlikely to attempt integration (Moore, Laffey, Espinosa, & Lodree, 2002).
The orange circle also addresses assumed motivation influences of classroom
teachers. Specifically, teachers need to believe they are capable of implementing
technology-based activities in the classroom and they need to believe students and
teachers are more effective when they are able to integrate technology-based activities.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 47

In a study conducted by Kafyulilo and Keengwe (2014), teachers who are not confident
in their use of instructional technology and fear embarrassment in front of students are
less likely to use technology for instruction. Teachers who experienced higher
technology self-efficacy typically had received additional training related to technology
integration in the classroom or were better equipped based on their personal experiences
with technology (Kafyulilo & Keengwe, 2014). Afshari, Bakar, Luan, Samah, and Fooi
(2009) identified similar findings in a study of factors that influence educators’ decision
to integrate technology into instruction. Successful integration of technology into
instruction requires pedagogical, psychological, and cognitive barriers to be removed.
When teachers believe technology will enhance their instruction or their students’
experience they are more likely to attempt integration. The arrow within the figure
indicates BASD (blue circle) and classroom teachers (orange circle) are working towards
achieving the stakeholder goal shown in the yellow box.
Each of the potential influencers within the study function independently;
however, they do not remain in isolation from each other. While classroom teachers are
strongly influenced by the resources provided to them, they also have latitude within their
lesson planning and design to determine the level of technology integration within their
own classrooms. If teachers do not have the technical, pedagogical, or content
knowledge (factual knowledge) to integrate technology into instruction, they will not be
motivated to attempt the new style of instruction (self-efficacy motivation). If classroom
teachers do not value technology as an instructional tool (expectancy-value motivation),
they will not build their technological knowledge (factual knowledge). Finally, if the
organization does not provide the planning time (physical resource) or models for
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 48

effective implementation (procedural knowledge), teachers will not be motivated to
develop plans supporting the integration of technology into instruction (motivation).
Conclusion
As schools strive to develop students as creators of media rather than just
consumers, effective implementation of technology is an area that should be examined in
elementary schools. The utilization of technology for instructional purposes is rapidly
gaining importance in the education field. This review will discuss the importance of a
teacher’s knowledge and skills on his or her ability to integrate technology into
instruction, how motivation affects a teacher’s willingness to integrate technology, and
how organizational barriers and supports can influence teachers in integrating technology
into instruction. Additionally, the chapter presented an overview of Clark and Estes’
methodological framework addressing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
support required to effectively integrate technology into instruction. Chapter Three will
present the study’s methodological approach.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 49

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The utilization of technology for instructional purposes is rapidly gaining
importance in the education field. As schools strive to develop students into creators of
media rather than just consumers, effective implementation of technology is an area that
should be examined in elementary schools. In this chapter, research design and methods
for data collection and analysis will be reviewed as related to the research questions.
Participating Stakeholders
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, this study focuses on one stakeholder group within the Bay Area School
District: classroom teachers. This stakeholder group was selected because teachers have
direct control over the utilization of technology within the classroom. Administrators can
provide physical resources; however, classroom teachers have direct control over when
and how students utilize those resources.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Classroom teachers within BASD were surveyed to gather data
based on the goal to have all classroom teachers trained and able to apply the skills
necessary for students to successfully communicate their thoughts and ideas in both
written and verbal formats as measured by student-created work presented at Presentation
of Learning events.
Criterion 2. Kindergarten through eighth grade teachers will be surveyed to
gather data around opportunities they provide to students based on the BASD technology
goal that over the course of the next three years, students in BASD will demonstrate their
ability to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of digital tools and
formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and in
collaboration with their peers.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 50

Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The selected sampling strategy is convenience sampling. In this strategy, samples
are selected based on availability (Johnson & Christensen, 2015). All classroom teachers
within BASD were selected to participate in the survey; however, the survey results were
based on those who choose to respond. According to Educational Data (2018), during the
2016-2017 school year, 104 teachers worked in BASD. Since the goal at BASD is to
have all students and staff with equitable access, the survey sought total population
participation. The survey was conducted at the beginning of the data collection process
to determine the current state of, and attitude towards, classroom teacher technology
integration within BASD. Creswell (2014) explains that surveys can be used to make
inferences about a population as well as collect data efficiently from a large population.
With the support of the district administration, the survey was emailed out to all
teachers. The email contained an explanation of the purpose of the study, how the data
will be used, and a request for voluntary participation in an interview and classroom
observation. Follow-up email reminders were sent until a survey completion rate of 60%
was reached.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Classroom teachers within BASD were sampled for interviewing to
gather data based on the goal to have all classroom teachers trained and able to apply the
skills necessary for students to successfully communicate their thoughts and ideas in both
written and verbal formats as measured by student created work presented at Presentation
of Learning events.
Criterion 2. Kindergarten through eighth grade teachers were sampled to gather
data around opportunities they provide to students based on the BASD technology goal
that over the course of the next three years, students in BASD will demonstrate their
ability to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of digital tools and
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 51

formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and in
collaboration with their peers.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The selected sampling strategy is cluster sampling. In this strategy, the sample
population is divided into groups and a random sample is selected from each cluster
(Johnson & Christensen, 2015). Kindergarten through eighth-grade classroom teachers
within BASD who responded to the survey that they are willing to participate in an
interview and classroom observation were clustered by grade level. The researcher
sought participation of two classroom teachers at each grade level who were randomly
selected for a total of 18 teachers. These teachers were emailed to schedule an interview
and observation date and time that was mutually acceptable to the teacher and researcher.
The interview was conducted after the survey data collection process to better understand
the current state of, and attitude towards, classroom teacher technology integration within
BASD. Creswell (2014) explains that interviews help the researcher learn the meaning of
the issue within the context of the participants’ perspective.
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Classroom teachers within BASD selected to participate in the
interview sample were also sampled to gather observational data based on the goal to
have all classroom teachers trained and able to apply the skills necessary for students to
successfully communicate their thoughts and ideas in both written and verbal formats as
measured by student-created work presented at Presentation of Learning events.
Criterion 2. Kindergarten through eighth grade teachers selected to participate
in the interview sample were also sampled to gather observational data to gather data
around opportunities they provide to students based on the BASD technology goal that
over the course of the next three years, students in BASD will demonstrate their ability to
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 52

present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of digital tools and formats by
analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and in collaboration with
their peers.
Observation Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Observational data was collected in the classroom with the researcher in the role
of complete observer. In this role, the classroom teacher and students knew the researcher
was there to collect observational data related to technology integration into instruction.
The researcher used an observational protocol adapted from the Intel Guide to
Monitoring eLearning Programs (2019). The purpose of observational data collection is
to triangulate the self-reported survey and interview data with an observation of the
actual utilization of technology within instruction. This connects back to developing a
holistic view of the teacher’s knowledge of how to integrate technology into instruction,
motivation to increase the rigor of technology-based products as well as the
organizational resources available within the classroom.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
The qualitative data collection methods chosen for this study include interviews
and observations. After going through a survey screening, voluntary interview and
observation participants were selected within each grade level. This method of
participant selection allows for interviews and observations to be conducted within a
representative sample across primary and upper grades. Interviews allow for data
collection around motivation and organizational influences. According to Patton (2002),
interviews are conducted in order to collect data, which cannot be observed. Specifically,
Patton continues, interviews provide researchers with access to the participants’
perspectives, which are valuable in allowing the researcher to have a more holistic view
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 53

of the situation. Within the context of this study, interviews allow the researcher to
develop a better understanding of teachers’ perspectives on expectations and support
from the district around the integration of technology as well as their perspectives on the
value of technology within education.
Observations allow for data collection related to teacher knowledge and
application of effective technology integration within the classroom. Patton (1987)
explains observations allow for the collection of descriptive data regarding the location of
the program and the participants within the program. Within the context of this study,
observational data includes the classroom environment, the teacher and his or her
instructional strategies, and the students and their engagement as well as the technology,
and level of access to it, within the classroom. Once collected, this observational data
was analyzed within the context of the interview data for a better understanding of the
context within which the study is being conducted.
Interviews
Interview protocol. The interview data was collected using a semi-structured
protocol because semi-structured interviews allow for the collection of general data
related to the topic of inquiry as well as the flexibility to adjust the interview as needed to
collect specifics related to a given participant. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define semi-
structured interviews as a mix of more and less structured interview questions. All
questions are used flexibly and the interview is guided by the questions; however, there is
no predetermined order to the questions.
A variety of question types was utilized in the interviews including experience
questions, opinion and values questions, knowledge questions, and
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 54

background/demographic questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Experience questions
within this study aimed to uncover the things a teacher does within his or her classroom
related to integrating technology and evaluating the effectiveness of that integration.
These questions are related to teachers’ motivation to integrate technology within their
instruction as well as their knowledge related to instructional technology. Teachers’
opinions and values related to technology integration, also tied to motivation, were
investigated through related questions as well as knowledge and
background/demographics based questions.
Another type of question discussed by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), devil’s
advocate questions, was used to uncover participants perspectives on organizational
supports and barriers. This type of question can provide opportunities for participants to
reveal subconscious or hidden perspectives they may not be comfortable sharing directly
with the interviewer. In this context, devil’s advocate questions was used to investigate
teachers’ skills and knowledge related to technology as well as their perspectives on
supports available to teachers with weak technology skills.
Interview Procedures. Interviews were conducted after the surveys and before
the observations. Survey data provided information regarding which participants are
willing to be interviewed and observed as well as providing information regarding their
general knowledge and background related to technology integration, beliefs about
technology within the instruction, and grade level. Once participants were identified and
interviewed, observations were conducted to look for alignment across the self-reported
data and the observational data.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 55

Each participant was interviewed one time, after the survey and before the
classroom observation. This allowed for the collection of data related to the teacher’s
knowledge of technology, curriculum, and management as well as the teacher’s
perception of any organizational supports or barriers. Weiss (1994) shares that building
rapport with the interviewee is crucial to the interviewer’s ability to gather information in
this form. The interviewee must believe he or she is working with the interviewer to
provide relevant information to benefit the research. Additionally, the interviewee must
believe the questions are related to the topic of interest and not asked for the
interviewer’s personal reasons.
In this study, each participant’s interview was projected to last about an hour for a
total of fourteen hours of interviews across fourteen participants. Interviews were
conducted informally in a location that was agreeable to both the interviewer and
interviewee. The majority of Interviews were conducted in the teacher’s classroom to
allow for observation of the instructional environment as well as interview data
collection. Interview data was collected in English through both notes and audio
recording. While Weiss (1994) explains tape recorders may remind participants that their
responses are being recorded, he also explains that recording the conversation can allow
the interviewer to focus more on participating in the conversation and less on taking
detailed notes. Once the recordings were transcribed, the interviewer had the benefit of
going back and reviewing the full transcript in addition to her notes.
Observation
Observation Protocol. The purpose of observations within this study is to
collect data related to teachers’ ability to integrate instructional technology. This method
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 56

of data collection is critical for triangulating self-reported information about instructional
technology. Teachers may report knowledge of technology integration based on what
they believe is the response expected by their supervisor or organization. By observing
instruction that contains technology, the researcher can look for application of knowledge
and motivation of technology integration based on the way it is utilized during
instruction. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), observers should look for the
context of the situation including the physical setting, the participants, their activities and
interactions, conversations that occur, and other subtle factors such as informal activities,
connotations, nonverbal communication, and what does not happen that should happen.
Observation Procedures. Within this study, observations were conducted
following the survey and participant interviews in order to allow for observational data to
be compared with self-reported data. Additionally, document collection happened before
interacting with the participants as well as before observations. Documents regarding the
district expectations for technology integration was collected at the beginning of the
study and lesson plans were collected before the observations.
The observer’s role within this study were known to the individuals participating
in the observation. This type of role is described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) as a
participant-observer. Specifically, this allows the observer to collect data related to the
instructional environment; however, the data may not be completely accurate because the
observer’s presence may influence the way teachers and students interact in the
environment. Each of the interview participants were also observed for a total of
fourteen observations. Each observation consisted of one lesson, which lasted thirty
minutes to an hour for a total of fourteen hours of observations. During the observations,
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 57

data was collected using paper and pen on the observation protocol tool. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) explain that highly descriptive notes, as well as reflective notes, are
important sources of data collection. They continue that effective notes should include
verbal descriptions of the environment, direct quotations of what is said, and observers
comments.
Documents and Artifacts
Document collection can help the researcher develop a broader understanding of
information related to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Documents
collected during this study include the BASD’s technology plan and teacher lesson plans.
The district’s technology plan, a public record, outlined expectations and supports
provided to teachers by the organization. The teachers’ lesson plans, personal
documents, outlined their knowledge and motivation regarding the effective integration
of technology into instruction. The teachers’ lesson plans were triangulated with survey
(researcher created document), interview, and observation data to look for alignment
across data sources. This alignment was used to examine the knowledge and motivation
regarding technology integration into instruction.
Quantitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
Surveys
Survey instrument. The survey instrument consisted of 22 items. Some of the
items used to collect demographic data included grade level and school site, while other
items used to collect information related to teachers’ knowledge and organizational
structures within BASD. Items included in the survey consisted of ratios such as how
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 58

frequently teachers integrate technology into instruction based on the percentage of time
(knowledge and motivation), and how much time they spend planning to integrate
technology into instruction (knowledge and motivation), as well as nominal questions
regarding whether or not teachers have received training on integrating technology
(knowledge and organizational supports) and if they believe technology supports their
students in accessing content more effectively (motivation).
Survey procedures. Cross-sectional surveys were conducted at the beginning of
data collection in order to provide a picture of how things are at a given point in time
(Fink, 2013). The sequence of the survey within data collection is that surveys were
conducted before interviews and observations to serve as a screening tool. The data
extracted from the survey informed the questions and probes during the interviews as
well as the observational data collection. The survey was administered online in order to
facilitate anonymity during the data collection process. Online surveys also allowed for
data to be collected from a large population in an efficient manner. The survey was used
to assess the knowledge and organizational influences on the integration of technology in
the classroom.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted once all survey results were
submitted. For interviews and observations, data analysis began during data collection.
The researcher wrote analytic memos after each interview and each observation. Further,
the researcher documented her thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data
in relation to her conceptual framework and research questions. Once the researcher left
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 59

the field, interviews were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of analysis, open
coding was utilized, looking for empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the
conceptual framework. The second phase of analysis was conducted where empirical and
a priori codes were aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data
analysis, the research identified pattern codes and themes that emerge in relation to the
conceptual framework and study questions. Lastly, the documents and artifacts were
analyzed for evidence consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
When considering the qualitative components of research, it is essential to discuss
credibility and trustworthiness. In the context of research, credibility refers to how well
the research connects back to the reality of what is being studied (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Qualitative research, by nature, requires the researcher to serve as not only data
collector but also interpreter and presenter. Serving in multiple roles can allow for the
researcher’s personal bias to influence the presentation of data if it is not carefully
analyzed and triangulated. Data triangulation occurs when the researcher uses multiple
data collection methods, sources of data, or theories to counteract the possibility of bias
in the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Within this study, multiple steps were taken to increase the credibility and
trustworthiness of the data. Explicitly describing the relationship between the
participants and the researcher, identifying how the study was conducted, and the process
by which participants were selected are all ways of increasing credibility and
trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, BASD was selected because
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 60

of its low-socioeconomic status, large Hispanic population, and proximity to Silicon
Valley. There was no prior relationship between the participants and the researcher. The
researcher gained access to BASD with the permission of the Superintendent who
previously worked with the researcher. All teachers were provided with an opportunity
to participate in the survey portion of the data collection; however, interview and
observation participants were selected, on a voluntary basis, based on the grade level in
which they teach. Additionally, the data was triangulated by interviewing multiple
participants separately and observing the participants instruction to compare against their
self-reported implementation.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are critical components of quantitative data collection.
Validity refers to the degree to which a measurement tool does what it says it does while
reliability refers to the consistency of the measurement tool (Salkind, 2017). The three
most common types of validity include: content, criterion, and construct. Content
validity refers to the tool’s ability to measure content within the area being assessed.
Within the context of this study, the content of the researcher developed survey items
were validated by educators who were not being surveyed in order to determine if the
items gather the information desired by the researcher. Criterion validity refers to the
tool’s ability to measure abilities in a current or future setting. Within the context of this
study, the criterion validity of the SAMR rubric has already been established in research
conducted by Dr. Ruben Puentedura. The final measure of validity is construct validity.
This type of validity refers to the tool’s ability to consistently measure behaviors relative
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 61

to other, correlated behaviors, which leads to reliability.
Reliability can be measured in four ways: test-retest, parallel forms, internal
consistency, and interrater (Salkind, 2017). Test-retest reliability refers to giving an
assessment multiple times and measuring the change over time. There should be
consistency among the scores in order for the assessment to be considered reliable.
When the researcher compares data from different forms of the same assessment, that
determines parallel forms reliability. Salkind (2017) continues that internal consistency
reliability is different from the previous two forms in that it refers to the ability of each
assessment item to measure only one dimension or construct. Within this study, each
survey item was aimed to measure knowledge, motivation, or organizational structures.
The final measure of reliability discussed by Salkind (2017) is interrater reliability, which
refers to the degree to which two raters agree when scoring. Interrater reliability will not
be used within the context of this study.
In order to ensure confidence in the sample, a 95% confidence interval will be
used. According to Salkind (2017), a confidence interval is the best estimate research can
use to represent the population when only working with a sample of the population. For
this study, the population is 73 teachers, which means a representative sample would be
62 surveys in order to allow for a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error.
Surveys were sent electronically to all teachers within the school district and reminders
were sent until 62 responses were received.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 62

Ethics
When working with human participants, researchers must consider their approach
to informed consent, ensuring participation is voluntary, the confidentiality of the data
and identities of individuals who participated, gaining permission to record, and storing
and securing the data (Glesne, 2011). In order to ensure participation is voluntary,
participants were provided with a letter that informs them that their participation is
voluntary, of any aspects of the research that may adversely affect them, and that they
may choose to stop participating at any point, which are the criteria for gaining informed
consent (Glesne, 2011). The letter also addressed the participants’ right to privacy.
Privacy was maintained because the participants’ identifying information was removed
before the data was analyzed and published. Finally, the researcher submitted the study
proposal to the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) and
followed guidelines to protect the participants in this study.
Assumptions and biases the researcher must account for within the data collection
include gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Assumptions and biases related to
gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status include that the researcher is a woman from
an upper-middle-class family born and raised in San Jose, California. Many of the
stakeholders of interest, classroom teachers, may also fall into these categories; however,
the students they serve do not. The majority of students served by BASD are of low
socioeconomic status and many are first or second-generation immigrants. Awareness of
these biases helped mitigate any influence they have on the data collection and analysis
within this evaluation study.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 63

Limitations and Delimitations
There are anticipated limitations and delimitations of this study. The sample size
for the survey has been limited to 48 individuals due to the voluntary nature of
participation. This reduces the confidence level to 90% from the originally proposed
95%. Three individuals volunteered to participate in the interviews and classroom
observations even though multiple attempts were made to involve additional participants.
Given the timing of the data collection at the end of the school year, classroom teachers
may be more reluctant to use their time participating in a survey. Additionally, at the end
of the school year, many schools require teachers to return instructional materials for the
summer. This could lead to a less robust instructional program for classroom
observations and teachers who are less willing to have visitors to their classrooms.
Answers to survey and interview questions are dependent on the honesty, biases, and
self-reflection of the participants. Document analysis could be biased as access has been
limited to documents publicly accessible on the BASD website.
While every effort was made to create clear survey items and interview
questions, participants’ responses were still dependent upon the understanding of these
items, which may vary across participants. Survey items and interview questions were
created based on the conceptual framework consisting of the knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences developed in Chapter 2. Data collection was limited to this
framework and does not address all aspects related to the integration of technology into
classroom instruction. Influences not addressed within the framework described in
Chapter 2 may be absent from the answers provided by the participants because they
were included in the development of the instruments.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 64

One of the main limitations of this study is the limited context of the study within
the Bay Area School District. The study’s findings cannot be generalized to other school
districts or settings. Other school districts may benefit from the use of Clark and Estes
(2008) framework to evaluate the effective integration of instructional technology within
their context.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 65

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
This chapter presents the study’s results and findings within the framework of the
study’s purpose and research questions. Chapter 3 delineated the assumed influences that
impact the integration of technology into classroom instruction. Assumed knowledge
influences included that teachers need knowledge of the components of the SAMR model
and how to integrate technology, pedagogy, and content into a lesson. Assumed
motivation influences included that teachers need to believe they are capable of
implementing technology-based activities in the classroom and that they are more
effective when they are able to integrate technology-based activities. Assumed
organizational influences included influences in cultural models and cultural settings.
The assumed cultural model influences included a culture that technology can help
students more effectively access content and become better-prepared citizens as well as a
culture of willingness to adjust instruction in order to incorporate technology into
instruction. The assumed cultural setting influences included giving teachers enough
non-instructional time to collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into instruction
as well as models of effective technology integration at each of the SAMR level “looks
like.” The results and findings will be organized by the categories of assumed influences:
knowledge, motivation, and organization.
As discussed in Chapter 3, multiple sources of data were utilized as a part of this
study. The document review of the district’s technology plan was analyzed at the
beginning of the study to identify the organizational and stakeholder goals. Participants
in the study were surveyed, interviewed, and observed to collect qualitative and
quantitative data in order to validate the assumed causes and understand the knowledge,
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 66

motivation, and organization challenges with integrating technology into instruction
within BASD. Survey data was collected first in order to provide a context for the
stakeholder interviews. As a part of the survey, participants had the opportunity to
volunteer to participate in an interview and classroom observation. The interview took
place second to provide an additional context for the classroom observation as well as
allowing the participant to gain a level of familiarity with the researcher before the
observation. The observation was conducted last in order to triangulate the data collected
from the survey and interview.
Participating Stakeholders
Quantitative data was collected through a survey administered to a group of 99
kindergarten through sixth-grade classroom teachers at BASD. Forty-four persons
responded to the survey for a response rate of 44%. Out of these 44 classroom teachers,
three agreed to a follow-up interview that would each last between 30 minutes and one
hour. All three teachers were selected for interviews and classroom visits. This allowed
the researcher to gather qualitative data to explore further the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences.
There were 44 participating stakeholders in the survey instrument. Of the 44
participating classroom teachers, their ages ranged from 24 to 58 years old and genders
included 38 female, five male, and one gender non-conforming. The number of years
teaching within BASD ranged from one year to 30 years. The teachers included
instruction of kindergarten through sixth-grade classes who had taught between two to six
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 67

schools during their career. Seven teachers reported they would be willing to participate
in an interview and classroom visit.
Of the seven teachers who reported they would participate in an interview and
classroom visit, only three teachers actually chose to participate. Participant 1 is a 35-
year-old woman who teaches kindergarten. She has taught 12 years in BASD. Participant
2 is a 51-year-old woman who teaches fourth grade. She has taught 22 years in BASD.
Participant 3 is a 51-year-old woman who teaches first grade. She has taught two years
in BASD.
Determination of Assets and Needs
The sources of data include an analysis of the district’s technology plan, online
surveys of classroom teachers, interviews of classroom teachers, and classroom
observations. The four data sources were used to triangulate the data. Triangulation is
the process of utilizing multiple data sources to provide a more balanced approach to
decision-making (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006). Once the data is organized and
analyzed, it becomes information that can be used to inform the identification of assets
and needs (Marsh et al., 2006).
A limitation of this study is the number of participants for the data collection
through interviews and classroom visits. Of the 48 survey participants, seven participants
responded they would be willing to participate in an interview and classroom
observation. Of these seven participants who reported they were willing to participate,
only three participants actually consented to participate in interviews and classroom
observations. A limitation of the study is that only one lesson plan was provided. Based
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 68

on this level of participation, the researcher was not able to reach saturation for this
study.
One possible explanation for the level of participation is the timing of the data
collection. The survey was conducted in April and May, which are during the state
testing window in California. Due to the sequential nature of the data collection,
interviews were conducted in mid-May and the classroom visits were conducted in late
May and early June. At this time in the school year, most teachers are completing end of
the year testing for the state and school district. Additionally, teachers begin wrapping up
their school year and returning their instructional materials at the end of the year.
Teachers may have been less willing to participate in data collection activities given their
other responsibilities at this time of year.
Based on the level of participation, the results and recommendations of this study
may be affected. An example of these effects includes limitations to the statements that
can be made regarding the data. The survey data can be generalized to most of the school
district while the interview and classroom visit data can be generalized to the participants
in the study. The data from the document collection is limited to the one participant who
provided a lesson plan.
The criteria for determining an influence as an asset or a need were based on the
form of data collection. With respect to the survey data, an influence was determined to
be an asset or a need based on a 70% majority of participants with the same response.
For the interviews, an influence was determined to be an asset or a need based on
agreement among the participants. The interviews were transcribed and each
participant’s responses to the interview questions were analyzed and coded. The first
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 69

round of coding was a priori, or codes related directly to the interview questions within
the context of the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences. Their responses
were also analyzed for open codes, or themes that arise from the participants’ responses.
For the observations, an influence was determined to be an asset or a need based on the
number and characteristics of similar observations. For documents, the only document
reviewed was the district’s technology plan.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The results and findings are reported using the knowledge categories of factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive
knowledge. The assumed knowledge influences are presented in each knowledge
category.
Factual Knowledge
Influence 1. Teachers need to know the components of the SAMR model.
Survey results. Teachers were asked to identify their level of familiarity with the
SAMR model. According to the survey, 84% of classroom teachers at BASD had not
heard of the SAMR model. To be determined as an asset, 70% of BASD teachers would
need to be familiar with the model. Therefore, this influence is determined in the survey
as a need in BASD. See table 5.
Table 5
Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Level of Familiarity with SAMR Model
Frequency Percent
Level of familiarity with the SAMR model
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 70

I have not heard of the SAMR model 37 84.1
I have heard of SAMR, but I am not familiar with the model 5 11.4
I have heard of the model and I am familiar with the levels 2 4.5
I can explain the SAMR levels to another educator 0 0
Interview findings. When asked to describe any ways to measure the rigor of
technology integration into the classroom, none of the three participants mentioned the
SAMR model. Instead, Participant 1 and Participant 2 spoke to how they use technology
to assess their students. Participant 1 spoke to the difference in rigor between presenting
information to students versus having them create something, “when it’s in presentation
mode, and it’s just giving them information, it’s not as rigorous as opposed to when I’m
asking them to create something.” Participant 2 discussed assessing students’ ability to
technology, “I see how they progress on the Chromebook...it’s really more in the
classroom based on what I’m seeing.” Only Participant 3 referenced assessing the
integration of technology into instruction by stating “our district doesn’t even evaluate.
Our teachers do training and professional development but they don’t really evaluate how
we’re using technology.” The participants were not in agreement about utilization of a
method to measure the integration of technology into instruction. Additionally, none of
the participants mentioned the SAMR model; therefore, this influence is determined in
the interview findings as a need in BASD.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 71

Document analysis. The lesson plan provided by Participant 2 does not address
any aspects of the SAMR model. Technology integration is limited to audio presentation
of the text at two Lexile levels and a vocabulary slideshow.
Summary. Based on the survey data, fewer than 70% of BASD teachers are
familiar with the SAMR model. Additionally, during the interviews, none of the
participants discussed the SAMR model as a method for evaluating the integration of
technology into instruction. Finally, the provided lesson plan did not address any
aspects of the SAMR model. Overall, the teachers’ knowledge of the components of the
SAMR model was identified as an area of need in BASD based on the data.
Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 1. Teachers need to know how to integrate technology, pedagogy, and
content into a lesson.
Survey results. Surveys were not conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. Teachers answered questions about how frequently they use
technology in their classrooms as well as what learning tasks are completed with
technology in their instruction. All three participants stated they use technology in their
classrooms every day. Participant 1 reported, “our school teaches coding...so we build
that foundation by doing the program ScratchJr...my boys who love video games loved
it.” She also spoke to the different ways she integrates technology into her instruction. “I
definitely try to incorporate it into the science units...the culminating project is to create
slides on each stage in the life cycle of a chicken.” Participant 2 spoke to students using
the online guide for the writing process. Students were expected to use articles as
resources for text-based evidence, “they had to write a rough draft and then the final
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 72

draft. They had to revise and edit. And then they had to cut and paste and put it into
Google docs and then share it with me.” Participant 3 discussed the students’ use of a
“News 2 You activity...a current event, that the kids are interested in and are aware of and
stuff that happens in the real world...this is information they need to learn in the world.”
The participants know how to integrate technology, pedagogy, and content into a lesson;
therefore, this influence is determined in the interview findings as an asset in BASD.
Observation. During the observation of Participant 1’s classroom, students were
observed to independently use ScratchJr., basic coding software. When the researcher
spoke with the students, they were able to explain the steps required to make an object
move on the device’s screen using basic, directional coding. During the observation of
Participant 2’s classroom, students were observed to engage with the Wonders
curriculum online. Students practiced using text sources online to support a writing task.
During the observation of Participant 3’s classroom, the students were observed to
require support with accessing technology as well as other tasks. One student was
observed to use an alternative/augmentative communication device with hand-over-hand
prompting from a staff member. This use of technology allowed this student to
communicate with other individuals in the classroom. The observation characteristics
showed teachers know how to integrate technology, pedagogy, and content into a lesson;
therefore, this influence is determined in the observation findings as an asset in BASD.
Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary. Based on the interview data, the participants know how to integrate
technology, pedagogy, and content into a lesson. Additionally, during the observation
data was collected that indicated teachers know how to integrate technology, pedagogy,
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 73

and content into a lesson. Overall, the teachers’ knowledge of how to integrate
technology, pedagogy, and content into a lesson was identified as an asset in BASD
based on the data.
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 1. Teachers need to understand how to apply the SAMR model
components to instruction.
Survey results. Teachers were asked to classify instructional activities according
to the SAMR model criteria. For activity 1, developing a slideshow, only 18.2% of
respondents were able to correctly identify the task as a substitution activity. The
majority of respondents (43.2%) incorrectly classified the task as modification, which is a
significant redesign of a paper/pencil task. A modification of this task could more
accurately be defined by having students create a movie using audio and video. For
activity 2, the majority of respondents (43.2%) correctly identified the activity as a
modification of a paper/pencil task. For activity 3, the majority of respondents were split
between identifying the task as augmentation (34.1%) and modification (34.1%). While
the activity was correctly identified as augmentation by (34.1%), 11.4% of respondents
incorrectly believed that a computer-based intervention program is redefinition of a
paper/pencil task. Redefinition of an intervention program could more accurately be
represented by participating in a live online intervention program with an instructor who
specializes in the area of student need. A majority of teachers, as determined by a
threshold of 70%, were not able to correctly identify the SAMR model level of any of the
presented activities. Therefore, this influence is determined in the survey as a need in
BASD. See table 6.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 74

Table 6
Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Classification of Integrating
Technology Activity
Frequency Percent
1. Students are asked to develop an individual slideshow
presentation about the unit of study.

Augmentation that slightly improves a paper/pencil task 7 15.9
Modification that significantly redesigns a paper/pencil task 19 43.2
Redefinition that allows for a new task which could not be
completed with paper/pencil
10 22.7
Substitution for a paper/pencil task 8 18.2
2. Students are asked to collaborate digitally (i.e. Google Docs) to write a
research paper about their unit of study.

Augmentation that slightly improves a paper/pencil task 9 20.5
Modification that significantly redesigns a paper/pencil task 19 43.2
Redefinition that allows for a new task which could not be
completed with paper/pencil
5 11.4
Substitution for a paper/pencil task 11 25
3. Students use a computer-based intervention program (i.e.
reading, math, etc.) for 20 minutes a day.

Augmentation that slightly improves a paper/pencil task 15 34.1
Modification that significantly redesigns a paper/pencil task 15 34.1
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 75

Redefinition that allows for a new task which could not be
completed with paper/pencil
9 20.5
Substitution for a paper/pencil task 5 11.4

Interview findings. During the interviews, participants were asked to speak to the
ways teachers measure the impact of learning technology on academic achievement. All
three participants spoke to the use of learning technology to assess student learning.
Participant 1 shared that technology is “a way to show that they understand what they
know because they have to be an expert in what they know to be able to add that extra
component of figuring out technology.” Participant 2 spoke to how students are able to
complete worksheets in both English Language Arts and Math online. She continued, “at
the end of the week, I take a look at how they progress through those worksheets and how
accurate they were. And I give them a letter grade based on that.” Participant 3 spoke to
the differences between students in general education and special education. She
explained that a lot of what she does is “seeing what they know is through observation”
and she knows that “other classrooms, in the Gen Ed populations, those teachers, they all
use Google Chromebooks or iPads and they have different things they engage within the
curriculum.” The participants were not in agreement about how to apply the SAMR
model components to instruction; therefore, this influence is determined in the interview
findings as a need in BASD.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. The lesson plan provided by Participant 2 demonstrates the
substitution level of the SAMR model. The read aloud provided by technology replaces a
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 76

read aloud conducted by the teacher. The vocabulary slideshow replaces vocabulary
flashcards typically provided with English Language Arts curriculum.
Summary. Based on the survey data, the participants do not know how to apply
the SAMR model components to instruction. Additionally, the interview data shows
participants were not in agreement about how to apply the SAMR model components to
instruction. The provided lesson plan demonstrates substitution of technology for a
paper-pencil task. Overall, the teachers’ knowledge of how to apply the SAMR model
components to instruction was identified as a need in BASD based on the data.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
The results and findings are reported using the motivation categories of value and
self-efficacy. The assumed motivation influences are presented in each motivation
category.
Value
Influence 1. Teachers need to believe they are more effective when they are able
to integrate technology-based activities.
Survey results. Teachers in BASD were asked if technology helps students
become better prepared to produce information in society. Survey results showed that
52.3% of teachers strongly agreed and 40.9% somewhat agreed. This meets the 70%
threshold to be considered an asset in BASD. See table 7.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 77

Table 7
Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Technology Preparing Students
Frequency Percent
Technology helps students become better prepared to be producers
of information in society.

Strongly disagree 0 0
Somewhat disagree 0 0
Neither agree nor disagree 3 6.8
Somewhat agree 18 40.9
Strongly agree 23 53.2

Interview findings. Teachers were asked about the role of technology in student
learning. Participant 3 spoke to the value of technology in instruction by stating, “I think
it’s preparing kids for modern-day learning. This is the way we’re learning.” Participant
1 shared her role with students and technology by saying,“I’m building them a
foundation. I think [technology]’s important that they know.” Participant 2 spoke more
towards the role of technology in instruction. She reported, “we have something called
the Wonders program...I’m able to project the story and then I’m able to press play and
then the story will read.” Teachers were also asked how a teacher might effectively
incorporate technology into their instructional plans. Participant 1 shared that “anything I
can do that I can show them on a screen or give them a visual makes that connection a
little bit clearer for them.” Participant 2 spoke to the importance of integrating
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 78

technology into instruction, “I think it’s really important especially today as we’re in
2019 and technology seems to have grown so much and the kids really need to be
proficient in technology...I want them to get used to the tools that are on the computer.”
Participant 3 spoke to teachers’ ability to use technology through, “games that were fun
and interactive and engaging was reinforcing those skills and just helping the child learn
more in depth.” The participants were not in agreement about believing they are more
effective when they are able to integrate technology-based activities; therefore, this
influence is determined in the interview findings as a need in BASD.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary. Based on the survey data, the participants believe technology helps
students become better prepared to be producers of information in society. The interview
data shows participants were not in agreement about believing they are more effective
when they are able to integrate technology-based activities. Overall, the teachers’ belief
they are more effective when they are able to integrate technology-based activities was
identified as a need in BASD based on the data.
Self-Efficacy
Influence 1. Teachers need to believe they are capable of implementing
technology-based activities in the classroom.
Survey results. Teachers were asked about their ability to integrate technology
into instruction. Based on survey results, the majority of respondents somewhat agree
(52.3%) or strongly agree (29.5%) they feel comfortable integrating technology-based
activities in the classroom. A majority of teachers, as determined by a threshold of 70%,
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 79

believe they are capable of implementing technology-based activities in the classroom.
Therefore, this influence is determined in the survey as an asset in BASD. See table 8.
Table 8
Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Comfort with Integrating
Technology Activity
Frequency Percent
I feel comfortable with my ability to integrate technology-based
activities in the classroom.

Strongly disagree 2 4.5
Somewhat disagree 1 2.3
Neither agree nor disagree 5 11.4
Somewhat agree 23 52.3
Strongly agree 13 29.5

Interview findings. Teachers were asked about their experience with professional
development related to learning technology. Participant 1 spoke to professional
development with respect to curriculum and online instructional programming. She
stated:
...we did get training on how to use that [program], and that was really nice
because when we first got it, we kind of were figuring it out on our own, and once
we went for a half-day training, I felt like, okay. I understood. I understood how
to create activities for the kids and how to personalize it and make it meaningful,
whereas before, it was just me logging them on, and I didn’t really have any ideas
of the capabilities of the program. So that was helpful.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 80

Participant 2 addressed the challenges with finding professional development at her level.
“The problem is to find a class that’s at your level because either they’ve been too basic
for me and I’m too advanced or they’ve been to hard for me and I’m not at that level yet.”
Participant 3 acknowledged that “our teachers do professional development and
training...and then there’s so many other things that need to be done, like Language Arts
and Reading and Math and so all that becomes more of the focus.” She continued to
discuss that, “there’s nothing that kind of evaluates where we’re looking at more of the
data of how our kids are performing at different academic areas.” The participants were
not in agreement about the level of professional development provided around learning
technology.
Teachers were also asked to describe any experiences they have had with
attempting to transform traditional paper and pencil tasks to technology-based activities.
Participant 1 shared she frequently attempts to transform activities because, “it’s more
meaningful for them, and I think the excitement behind it hooks them in and gets them
invested as opposed to when it’s just pen and paper.” Participant 2 explained that she has
moved her worksheets online; however, based on her description, there has been no
transformation. She stated, “I was able to change my spelling worksheets, my vocabulary
worksheets and grammar worksheets all online instead of printing out a class set.” She
also has students submit their homework online, “it’s just all online and they do it online
at the computer at home.” Participant 3 described transforming traditional activities by
using videos, “I find YouTube videos with the same book I want to teach but then I have
them view it that way.” Based on their responses there is insufficient information to
determine they all believe they are capable of implementing technology-based activities
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 81

in the classroom; therefore, this influence is determined in the interview findings as a
need in BASD.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. The lesson plan provided by Participant 2 could be
implemented without technology. Based on the classroom observation, this teacher
chooses to use the technology components included in the lesson plan developed by the
publisher.
Summary. Based on the survey data, the participants believe they are capable of
implementing technology-based activities in the classroom. The interview data shows
participants were not in agreement about believing they are capable of implementing
technology-based activities in the classroom. The lesson plan developed by the
curriculum publisher shows teachers how to integrate technology into instruction at the
substitution level. Overall, the teachers’ belief they are more effective when they are able
to integrate technology-based activities was identified as a need in BASD based on the
data.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
The results and findings are reported using the organization categories of cultural
models and cultural settings. The assumed organization influences are presented in each
organization category.
Cultural Models
Influence 1. The organization needs a culture that technology can help students
more effectively access content and become better prepared citizens.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 82

Survey results. Teachers were asked if technology can help students become
better-prepared citizens, 29.5% of respondents strongly agreed and 54.5% somewhat
agreed. To be determined as an asset, 70% of BASD teachers would need to believe they
are more effective when they are able to integrate technology-based activities. Therefore,
this influence is determined in the survey as an asset in BASD. See table 9.
Table 9
Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Level of Agreement About
Technology Creating Better Prepared Citizens
Frequency Percent
Teachers at BASD believe technology can help students become
better prepared citizens.

Strongly disagree 0 0
Somewhat disagree 1 2.3
Neither agree nor disagree 6 13.6
Somewhat agree 24 54.5
Strongly agree 13 29.5

Interview findings. When asked about the role of learning technology in student
learning, multiple participants elaborated beyond the interview question to discuss how
they integrate technology to support students in accessing content. Participant 2 shared,
“if I’m teaching a grammar lesson...I can project that page from my computer onto the
screen and the kids can see it on the big screen...they have supplemental videos that I can
also play.” Participant 3 spoke to the benefits of technology for students with special
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 83

needs. “I deal with kids that have speech and language issues so technology helps
becomes their voice, whether through pictures or through words.” She continued,
“different apps that I’ve seen used for that are specifically designed for special needs
kids, that it just really opens up a whole new door for them.” The participants were in
agreement that the organization has a culture that believes technology can help students
become better-prepared citizens; therefore, this influence is determined in the interview
findings as an asset in BASD.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary. Based on the survey data, the organization has a culture that believes
technology can help students become better-prepared citizens. The interview data shows
participants were in agreement that the organization has a culture that believes
technology can help students become better-prepared citizens. Overall, the organization
culture believes technology can help students become better-prepared citizens was
identified as an asset in BASD based on the data.
Influence 2. The organization needs to have a culture of willingness to adjust
instruction in order to incorporate technology into instruction.
Survey results. Teachers were surveyed regarding the types of instructional
technology devices available to them in the classroom. The majority of instructional
technology accessible to staff include document cameras (97.9%), laptops (91.1%), and
Chromebooks (86.5%). The majority of students at BASD have access to Chromebooks
(or equivalent) (93.3%) and 27.3% of students have access to a tablet. Based on the
survey questions, 45.6% of students have access to a classroom document camera and
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 84

36.4% of students have access to a projector. Based on the combined percentages with
respect to access to instructional technology, this meets the 70% threshold to be
considered an asset in BASD. See table 10.
Table 10
Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Accessibility of Instructional
Technology
Frequency Percent
Instructional technology accessible to staff at your school.
Chromebook (or equivalent) 38 86.5
Desktop computer 9 20.6
Digital camera 10 22.8
Document camera 43 97.9
Laptop 40 91.1
Projector 40 91
Smartboard (or equivalent) 15 34.1
Tablet (i.e. iPad or equivalent) 26 59.3
Other 1 2.3
Instructional technology that is accessible to students at your school.

Chromebook (or equivalent) 41 93.3
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 85

Desktop computer 1 2.3
Digital camera 2 4.5
Document camera 20 45.6
Ipods 3 6.8
Laptop 3 6.9
Projector 16 36.4
Smartboard (or equivalent) 8 18.2
Tablet (i.e. iPad or equivalent) 12 27.3

Interview findings. Teachers were interviewed regarding their experiences with
requesting support to integrate technology into instruction. The participants mostly spoke
to the support they received with the physical devices or online programming, not to
support with integrating technology into instruction. Participant 1 discussed training she
received for integrating a specific program. She stated, “I wish I could have known
because I could have...I could figure it out what the kids were doing and I could
differentiate instruction based on how they were doing.” She concluded, “it could have
guided my instruction better, and I didn’t find out about that until March.” Participant 2
explicitly stated, “I feel like there’s really not a support for technology in the classroom. I
feel like and also too our principal has never been technology oriented.” This was
reflected by Participant 3 who shared, “sometimes with tech support I want to use my
document feeder, but ‘oh, we don’t have the cord’...and they’re all, like ‘ok we’ll talk to
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 86

your principal’...so that’s frustrating as a teacher.” Based on their responses there is
insufficient information to determine if the teachers are in agreement that organization
has a culture of willingness to adjust instruction in order to incorporate technology into
instruction in BASD.
Observation. During the observation, the researcher looked for a culture of
willingness to adjust instruction in order to incorporate technology into instruction. In
Participant 1’s classroom, the teacher was observed to use a document camera and
projector to demonstrate a model Father’s Day card on the overhead screen.
Additionally, students were observed to independently use iPads for coding and English
Language Arts practice on Imagine Learning. In Participant 2’s classroom, the teacher
was observed to use a computer and projector to display videos on the overhead screen
for students to compare and contrast as well as the directions for the students’ writing
task. Students were observed to use Chromebooks to engage with an online reading and
writing curriculum to practice the steps of the writing process, including peer editing.
During the observation of Participant 3’s classroom, the teacher was observed to display
reading curriculum on the overhead screen using a computer and projector. Also, the
support staff were observed to assist students in using assistive technology including an
augmentative/alternative communication device and a device for students with visual
impairment. The observation characteristics showed the organization has a culture of
willingness to adjust instruction in order to incorporate technology into instruction;
therefore, this influence is determined in the observation findings as an asset in BASD.
Document analysis. The curriculum-based lesson plan provided by Participant 2
can be used as evidence of BASD’s support of the integration of technology into
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 87

instruction. This lesson plan consists of technology-based curriculum as well as
technology-based curriculum supplements in the form of read aloud text and vocabulary
slideshows.
Summary. Based on the survey data, the organization has a culture of
willingness to adjust instruction in order to incorporate technology into instruction. The
interview data shows there is insufficient information to determine organization has a
culture of willingness to adjust instruction in order to incorporate technology into
instruction. Based on the observation data, the organization has a culture of willingness
to adjust instruction in order to incorporate technology into instruction. The district
adopted curriculum includes lesson plans that use technology-based text and supplements
to help students access the content of the text. Overall, organization’s culture of
willingness to adjust instruction in order to incorporate technology into instruction was
identified as an asset in BASD based on the data.
Cultural Settings
Influence 1. The organization needs to give teachers enough non-instructional
time to collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into instruction.
Survey results. According to survey results, 45.5% of participants report
receiving between 1-30 minutes each month to collaborate and reflect on integrating
technology into instruction while an additional 31.8% report receiving zero minutes each
month. Another 15.9% report receiving 31-60 minutes of planning time and 2.3%
receive 61-90 minutes and 4.5% receive over 91 minutes a month planning time. Based
on the survey data, there is a wide range of site administrator support for technology
integration in the form of planning time. Based on the percentages with respect to
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 88

planning time, this does not meet the 70% threshold and is determined to be an area of
need in BASD. See table 11.
Table 11
Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Familiarity and Use of
Integrating Technology
Frequency Percent
My school provides me with __ minutes a month to collaborate and reflect on
integrating technology into instruction.

0 14 31.8
1-30 20 45.5
31-60 7 15.9
61-90 1 2.3
91+ 2 4.5

Interview findings. Teachers were interviewed regarding the support teachers
need to integrate technology. Participant 2 spoke to the need for additional time to
effectively integrate technology into instruction. She stated, “I really feel like I’m a few
years behind in terms of what’s available...if someone can take my class for a day so that
I can attend a technology workshop, or even half a day, that would be awesome.” She
also spoke to to a district expectation for teachers to participate in professional
development during the summer, “they want us to do it during the summer...the summer
is tough because either we’re working other jobs or we’re not able.” She continued, “if I
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 89

could have something during my school year and you could pull me for like maybe, okay
here’s a three-day workshop...that would be awesome.” Participant 3 agreed with the
need for teacher time. She reported, “I think that there needs to be time for teacher,
whether it’s a day or so. It’s hard because teachers have such long workdays but that
they do need professional development.” Based on their responses, the participants are in
agreement that the organization needs to give teachers enough non-instructional time to
collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into instruction. Therefore, this is
identified as an area of need in BASD.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary. Based on the survey data, fewer than 70% of teachers responded they
have planning time to collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into instruction.
The interview data shows there is agreement among interview participants that there is
insufficient time for teachers to plan and reflect on integrating technology into
instruction. Overall, organization’s culture of providing teachers’ with planning time to
collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into instruction was identified as an
area of need in BASD based on the data.
Influence 2. The organization needs models of effective technology integration
at each of the SAMR levels so teachers know what each level “looks like.”
Survey results. Teachers were asked about about having a model of effective
technology integration, the majority of respondents somewhat disagree (22.7%), neither
agree nor disagree (29.5%), or somewhat agree (36.4%) that BASD has provided models
of what effective technology integration “looks like” in a classroom. To be determined
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 90

as an asset, 70% of BASD teachers would need to know how to integrate technology,
pedagogy, and content into a lesson. Therefore, this influence is determined in the survey
as a need. See table 12.
Table 12
Frequency and Percentage Summaries of Responses on Level of Agreement About of
Integrating Technology Activity
Frequency Percent
BASD has provided me with models of what effective technology integration
“looks like” in a classroom.

Strongly disagree 4 9.1
Somewhat disagree 10 22.7
Neither agree nor disagree 13 29.5
Somewhat agree 16 36.4
Strongly agree 1 2.3

Interview findings. Teachers were interviewed regarding experiences they have
had with transforming a paper and pencil activity into a technology based activity. Each
of the three participants described a task at the substitution level of the SAMR model.
Participant 1 described using technology to supplement a phonics activity,
They wrote the silent e on those words, but did they really understand, or were
they just writing a silent e, as opposed to when we do a phonics game up on the
board with our language arts program, and they’re actually having to manipulate
things and listen for that e and determine, without the e, it’s tap, but with the e,
it’s tape.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 91

Participant 2 reported using technology to use digital worksheets instead of paper
worksheets. She stated, “I’m thrilled that I was able to change my spelling worksheets,
my vocabulary worksheets, and my grammar worksheets all online instead of printing out
a class set.” She also discussed trying to integrate technology into content areas, “I’m
trying to get more of my social studies more technology oriented and I haven’t been able
to do that and that’s kind of a stumper for me.” She continued discussing her challenges
with integrating technology into projects, “I haven’t really been able to put [the Gold
Rush] into a technology project and so that’s been my biggest struggle.” Participant 3
also concurred, “I haven’t been able to do that, just because my kids don’t have their own
individual devices. So there’s that. That makes it kinda limited.” Based on their
responses, the participants are in agreement that does not have models of effective
technology integration at each of the SAMR levels so teachers know what each level
“looks like.” Therefore, this is identified as an area of need in BASD.
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. Document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary. Based on the survey data, fewer than 70% of teachers responded
organization has models of effective technology integration at each of the SAMR levels.
The interview data shows there is agreement among interview participants that there is
insufficient modeling of effective technology integration at each of the SAMR levels.
Overall, organization’s culture of providing models of effective technology integration at
each of the SAMR levels so teachers know what each level “looks like” was identified as
an area of need in BASD based on the data.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 92

Summary of Validated Influences

Table 13, 14, and 15 show the knowledge, motivation and organization influences for this
study and their determination as an asset or a need.
Knowledge

Table 13 Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence Asset or Need
Factual
Teachers need to know the components of the
SAMR model.
Need
Conceptual
Teachers need to know how to integrate
technology, pedagogy, and content into a
lesson.
Asset
Procedural
Teachers need to understand how to apply the
components of the SAMR model to instruction.
Need

Motivation
Table 14 Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influence Asset or Need
Value
Teachers need to believe they are more
effective when they are able to integrate
technology-based activities.
Need
Self Efficacy
Teachers need to believe they are capable of
implementing technology-based activities in
the classroom.
Need

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 93

Organization
Table 15 Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organization Influence Asset or Need
Cultural Model
The organization needs a culture that
technology can help students more effectively
access content and become better-prepared
citizens.
Asset
The organization needs to have a culture of
willingness to adjust instruction in order to
incorporate technology into instruction.
Asset
Cultural Setting
The organization needs to give teachers
enough non-instructional time to collaborate
and reflect on integrating technology into
instruction.
Need
The organization needs models of effective
technology integration at each of the SAMR
levels so teachers know what each level
“looks like.”
Need

Chapter 5 will present recommendations based on empirical evidence for
solutions to the above knowledge, motivation, and organization influences.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 94

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION & FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Chapter 4 was dedicated to completing data analysis and reporting the findings
that resulted from surveys, interviews, and observations with the key stakeholder,
classroom teachers. The findings were presented in the form of themes that developed
from the data and helped answer the research questions. The results also helped validate
the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that impacted the
stakeholders of focus as they work to improve the integration of technology into
instruction and achieve the organizational goal.
Chapter 5 addresses the final research question about the recommendations for
BASD’s organizational practice. The final recommendation described in this chapter is
for the organization to provide classroom teachers with professional development that
includes intentional opportunities for planning time to integrate technology into
instruction. Once implemented, the plan will guide the effective integration of
instructional technology into all content areas over the next three years. The strategic
implementation plan will clearly identify the overall organizational objective for the year,
list the quantitative annual goals, identify the key strategies or initiatives that include the
other recommendations from this study, and designate the measures that will be tracked
to determine progress against the goals.
The framework used to develop recommendations for the strategic
implementation plan and the evaluation plan for this study is the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The newly updated version utilizes the four
original levels used to evaluate outcomes as well as utilizing the strategy of beginning
with the end in mind. The model recommends the organization identifying the desired
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 95

results (level 4), address important behaviors (level 3) and relevant learning (level 2),
followed by participants’ reactions (level 1) to the strategic implementation plan. Each of
these levels will be described in detail. Additionally, the New World Kirkpatrick Model
will be used to evaluate the outcomes of the final implemented plan.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. As data collection is not yet complete for this project, the
knowledge influences in Table 16 represent the complete list of assumed knowledge
influences and their probability of being validated based on the most frequently
mentioned knowledge influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during surveys,
interviews, classroom observations, and those supported by the literature review,
including the integration of technology into instruction and Clark and Estes (2008), who
suggest that declarative knowledge about something is often necessary to know before
applying it to classify or identify, as in the case of reflecting on the effectiveness and
rigor of technology integration. As such, as indicated in Table 16, it is anticipated that
these influences have a high probability of being validated and have a high priority for
achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 16 also shows the recommendations for these
highly probable influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 16
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 96

or No
(V, HP, N)
Teachers are not familiar
with the principles of
quality technology
integration. (D)
V Y Provide
experiences that
help people
make sense of
the material
rather than just
focus on
memorization
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Provide job aid on
the steps to identify
tools for assessing
the rigor of
instructional
technology
integration
Teachers do not know
how to assess the rigor
of instructional
technology usage. (P)
V Y To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when
to apply what
they have
learned (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006).
Provide training
through which a
peer model walks
through the process
of assessing
technology
integration into
instruction using a
job aid.
Teachers do not know
how to integrate
technology into content
instruction. (P)
V Y Modeling to-be-
learned strategies
or
behaviors
improves self-
efficacy,
learning,
and performance
(Denler, Wolters,
&
Benzon, 2009).
Provide training
through which a
peer model utilizes a
job aid to walk
through the process
of integrating
technology into
content area lesson
planning.
Teachers need to reflect
on the effectiveness of
their integration of
technology into
V Y To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
Provide training
with authentic
instructional
technology lessons,
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 97

instruction. (M) component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when
to apply what
they have
learned (Schraw
& McCrudden,
2006).
expertise-based
demonstrations, and
practice by teachers
with feedback from
experienced
teachers or coaches.

Increasing teacher familiarity with principles of quality technology
integration. The results and findings of this study indicated 100% of participants need
more familiarity with principles of quality technology instruction as measured by SAMR.
A recommendation rooted in information processing theory can be used to address the
declarative knowledge gap. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) explain that to develop
mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have learned. This would suggest that providing teachers with a
job aid or tool would support their mastery of this skill. The recommendation then is to
provide teachers with a rubric or job aid that would define the components of effective
technology integration.
According to cognitive load theory, managing the load of information provided
for learners to store in their working memory can support learners in transferring skills
more effectively into their long-term memory (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006).
Some examples of this type of support include placing printed words near corresponding
graphics, presenting narration at the same time as pictures, and providing worked
examples (Kirschner et al., 2006). One way to provide employees with written support is
in the form of a job aid. Clark and Estes (2008) identified job aids as an effective way to
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 98

provide employees with self-help information they can use to complete a work-related
task. Specifically, job aids benefit employees who have completed training and do not
need additional guided practice to perform the related skill (Clark & Estes, 2008). Job
aids, such as rubrics, provide teachers with the tools to conduct alternative assessments
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Alternative assessments provide teachers with an opportunity to
measure students’ achievement and skills (Demir, Tananis, & Trahan, 2019; Wiggins,
1998). They also focus on students’ strategies for learning, problem-solving skills, and
abilities to complete tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008). By providing teachers with an
appropriate job aid, teachers will be equipped to appropriately evaluate the quality of
technology integration into instruction.
Increasing teacher familiarity with how to assess the rigor of technology
integration. The results and findings of this study indicated that 100% of participants
need more in-depth procedural knowledge about how to assess the rigor of instructional
technology usage through the SAMR model. A recommendation rooted in information
processing system theory has been selected to close this procedural knowledge gap.
Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that to develop mastery, individuals must acquire
component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have
learned. This would suggest that providing training through which a peer model walks
through the process of assessing technology integration into instruction using a job aid
would help the teacher develop this procedural knowledge. The recommendation then is
to provide teachers with professional development through modeling of how to assess the
rigor of instructional technology using a job aid by an expert teacher or instructional
coach.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 99

Pittman and Gaines (2015) cited inadequate professional development for
teachers as a barrier to the implementation of technology in the classroom. The traditional
approach to technology-based professional development consists of trainings lasting from
one hour to one day focused on how the technology works rather than how to integrate
technology into instruction (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Research has indicated that this
type of approach to professional development does not meet the ongoing pedagogical
needs of teachers and is often too far removed or disconnected from day-to-day
classroom practice (Gross, Truesdale, & Bielec, 2001; Moursund, 1989). Webster-Wright
(2009) advocates for transitioning from the concept of professional development to
professional learning. In this model, skills are developed and expanded through
discourse, experience, and active practice. Based on this, modeling and guided practice
will increase teacher familiarity with how to assess the rigor of technology integration
into instruction.
Increasing teacher familiarity with how to integrate technology into content
instruction. The results and findings of this study indicated that 75% of teachers need
more in-depth procedural knowledge about how to integrate technology into content
instruction. A recommendation rooted in information processing system theory has been
selected to close this procedural knowledge gap. Anderman and Anderman (2009)
determined that providing accurate feedback that identifies the skills or knowledge the
individual lacks, along with communication skills that can be learned, followed with the
teaching of those skills and knowledge can be the most impactful. This would suggest
that providing training through which a peer model utilizes a job aid to walk through the
process of integrating technology into content area lesson planning would be beneficial in
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 100

closing this gap. The recommendation then is to provide training and education with
authentic instructional technology lessons, expertise-based demonstrations, and practice
by teachers with feedback from experienced teachers or coaches.
Brush et al., (2003) studied training and education to assist learners in integrating
technology into content-area instruction. Specifically, the model lessons entailed
integrating different forms of technology into language arts, mathematics, science, or
social studies. Using a field-based model, preservice teachers were required to participate
in a minimum of two modeling sessions each semester, deliver a model lesson based on
the activities, and reflect on the process and the effectiveness of the technology
integration. The study supports the recommendation to provide teachers with training and
education with authentic instructional technology lessons, expertise-based
demonstrations, and practice by teachers with feedback from experienced teachers or
coaches to improve integration of technology into content areas.
Increasing teacher familiarity with reflecting on the effectiveness of
technology integration. The results and findings of this study indicated that 100% of
participants need more in-depth metacognitive knowledge about how to reflect on the
effectiveness of their integration of technology into instruction. Schraw and McCrudden
(2006) found that to develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice
integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned. This would suggest
that providing guidance, modeling, coaching, and other scaffolding during a performance
would help teachers develop this metacognitive knowledge (Mayer, 2011). The
recommendation then is to provide training with authentic instructional technology
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 101

lessons, expertise-based demonstrations, and practice by teachers with feedback from
experienced teachers or coaches.
Teachers who participated in mentoring or coaching became more comfortable
with technology and developed a greater proficiency with technology use than those who
did not participate (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Research also showed the mentor and
mentee both benefited from the relationship through learning more about technology as a
teaching tool.. Engelbrecht and Ankiewicz (2016) advocate that training should be
appropriate for the participants, involve the participants in the learning, should take place
over an extended period of time, and consist of contact over a period of several years.
Therefore, providing teachers with feedback from experienced coaches or mentors will
increase their proficiency by reflecting on the effectiveness of technology integration
more effectively than other methods of professional development.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. As data collection is not yet complete for this project, the
motivation influences in Table 17 represent the complete list of assumed motivation
influences and their probability of being validated based on the most frequently
mentioned motivation influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during surveys,
interviews, classroom observations, and those supported by the literature review,
including the integration of technology into instruction and Clark and Estes (2008), who
suggest that motivation is necessary before implementation, as in the case of reflecting on
the effectiveness and rigor of technology integration. As such, as indicated in Table 17, it
is anticipated that these influences have a high probability of being validated and have a
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 102

high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 17 also shows the
recommendations for these highly probable influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 17
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers lack self-efficacy
in implementing
technology-based
activities in the classroom.
HP Y High self-
efficacy can
positively
influence
motivation
(Pajares, 2006)

Modeling to-
be-learned
strategies or
behaviors
improves self-
efficacy,
learning,
and
performance
(Denler,
Wolters, &
Benzon, 2009).

Provide instruction
on how to integrate
technology-based
activities,
opportunities to
work with a coach
integrating
technology-based
activities, and
feedback on the
effectiveness of the
integration.

Provide
opportunities for
learners to check
their progress and
adjust their
learning
strategies as
needed (Denler et
al., 2009).

Teachers need to view
technology-based
activities as valuable for
improving activities in the
classroom.
HP Y Rationales that
include a
discussion of
the importance
and utility
Include rationales
about the
importance and
utility value of
integrating
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 103

value of the
work or
learning can
help learners
develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003)
technology-based
activities.

Increasing teacher self-efficacy in implementing technology-based activities
in the classroom. The results and findings of this study indicated that 75% of teachers
lack confidence in implementing technology-based activities in the classroom. A
recommendation rooted in self-efficacy theory has been selected to close this self-
efficacy gap. Pajares (2006) found that high self-efficacy can positively influence
motivation. Additionally, modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improves self-
efficacy, learning, and performance (Denler, Wolters, & Benzon, 2009). This would
suggest that providing teachers with modeling, guided practice, and targeted feedback
would support their confidence. The recommendation then is to provide instruction on
how to integrate technology-based activities, opportunities to work with a coach
integrating technology-based activities, and feedback on the effectiveness of the
integration.
Franklin (2007) found that personal use of technology teacher efficacy for using
technology in the classroom, but does not inherently mean the teacher can integrate
technology into instruction. In another study conducted by Rohaan, Taconis, and Jochems
(2012), the researchers found that teachers with strong self-efficacy and a positive
attitude were more likely to increase the frequency of technology instruction in the
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 104

classroom. Additionally, a literature review conducted by Joo, Park, and Lim (2018)
found teachers who have high self-efficacy are more likely to try creative teaching
methods and new instructional activities. They continued that teacher self-efficacy can
significantly motivate the adoption of new technologies in the classroom. From a
theoretical perspective, then, it would appear that increasing self-efficacy in technology
integration would increase technology in classroom activities.
Increasing teacher value of technology-based activities for improving
activities in the classroom. The results and findings of this study indicated that 75% of
teachers need to view technology-based activities as valuable for improving activities in
the classroom. A recommendation rooted in task value theory has been selected to close
this value gap. Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) concluded that rationales that include a
discussion of the importance and utility value of the work or learning can help learners
develop positive values. This would suggest that providing teachers with information
about how technology-based activities can improve teaching and learning. The
recommendation then is to include rationales about the importance and utility value of
integrating technology-based activities into instruction during all professional
development opportunities.
Pittman and Gaines (2015) studied third, fourth, and fifth-grade teachers from the
14 public elementary schools in Florida. A survey was distributed to determine the level
of access to technology at the participant’s school and in the classroom, the level of the
professional development related to technology, their attitude toward technology, the
level of technology integration in the classroom, and their perception of the most
important barriers to technology integration. The researchers found that teachers’
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 105

attitudes and beliefs about the importance of technology integration, as well as direct
student access to computers within the classroom, had the most impact on high-level
technology usage in the classroom. Based on this study, the recommendation is to
explicitly communicate to teachers how integrating technology in their classrooms can
enhance their instruction and improve student outcomes in order to increase the level of
technology integration in the classroom.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. As data collection is not yet complete for this project, the
organization influences in Table 18 represent the complete list of assumed organization
influences and their probability of being validated based on the most frequently
mentioned organization influences to achieving the organizational goal during surveys,
interviews, classroom observations, and those supported by the literature review,
including the integration of technology into instruction. As such, as indicated in Table
18, it is anticipated that these influences have a high probability of being validated and
have a high priority for achieving the organizational goal. Table 18 also shows the
recommendations for these highly probable influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 18
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence

Validated as
a Gap
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 106

Cultural Model
Influence 1:
Benefits of
Technology
The organization
needs a cultural model
that technology can
help students more
effectively access
content and become
better-prepared
citizens.
Y Y Effective
organizations
ensure that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies
and procedures that
govern the work of
the
organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Ensure all
professional
development
opportunities
include explicit
messaging on how
technology can help
students more
effectively access
the content and
become better-
prepared citizens.
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
Technology
Integration
The organization
needs to have a
culture of willingness
to adjust instruction
in order to
incorporate
technology into
instruction.
Y Y Effective change
begins by
addressing
motivation
influencers; it
ensures the group
knows why it needs
to change. It then
addresses
organizational
barriers and then
knowledge and
skills needs (Clark
& Estes,
2008).
Early adopters and
instructional
coaches will share
the benefits of
incorporating
instructional
technology into
instruction, and the
increases in student
outcomes, during
professional
development
opportunities.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Planning Time
The organization
needs to give
teachers enough non-
instructional time to
collaborate and
reflect on integrating
technology into
instruction.
Y Y 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 resources are
Teachers will be
provided with
regular, self-
directed, non-
instructional work
time over the course
of the school year to
collaborate and
reflect on
integrating
technology into
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 107

aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
instruction.
Cultural Setting
Influence 2:
Level of Integration
The organization
needs models of
effective technology
integration at each of
the SAMR levels so
teachers know what
each level “looks
like.”
Y Y Targeting training
and instruction
between the
individual’s
independent
performance level
and their level of
assisted
performance
promotes optimal
learning (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006).
Provide training to
help teachers
develop a mental
model for what
technology
integration looks
like at each of the
SAMR levels.

The organization understands technology can help students more effectively
access content and become better-prepared citizens. The results and findings of this
study indicated that 70% of participants need to understand how technology can help
students more effectively access content and become better-prepared citizens. A
principle rooted in organizational change theory has been selected to close this resource
gap. Effective organizations ensure that organizational messages, rewards, policies, and
procedures that govern the work of the organization are aligned with or are supportive of
organizational goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008). This would suggest that
incorporating the benefits of technology integration in organizational messages, policies,
and procedures. The recommendation then is to ensure all professional development
opportunities include explicit messaging on how technology can help students more
effectively access the content and become better-prepared citizens.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 108

A study conducted by Kale and Akcaoglu (2018) examined preservice teachers’
motivations to incorporate technology meaningfully during their coursework. Through
the completion of a pre and post-survey, 111 preservice teachers were studied regarding
their utility value and interest toward technology integration.
The researchers found that preservice teachers who reflected on the relevance of
technology were more likely to be able to identify the utility values of technology in the
current lesson. Additionally, preservice teachers who were able to make connections
between their current lesson and future practices were more likely to consider the use of
technology in realistic ways. Based on this study, it is important to provide teachers
sufficient time to reflect on the relevance of technology during instruction as well as
ensuring all professional development opportunities include explicit messaging on how
technology can help students more effectively access the content and become better-
prepared citizens.
The organization has a culture of willingness to adjust instruction in order
to incorporate technology into instruction. The results and findings of this study
indicated that 70% of participants need to have a culture of willingness to adjust
instruction in order to incorporate technology into instruction. A principle rooted in
organizational change theory has been selected to close this resource gap. Effective
change begins by addressing motivation influencers; it ensures the group knows why it
needs to change. It then addresses organizational barriers and then knowledge and skills
needs (Clark & Estes, 2008). This would suggest that incorporating information about
why adjusting instruction to include technology is beneficial for teachers and students.
The recommendation then is for early adopters and instructional coaches to share the
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 109

benefits of incorporating instructional technology into instruction, and the increases in
student outcomes, during professional development opportunities.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), culture describes core values, goals, beliefs,
and processes within an environment. They continue that culture is another way to
describe the knowledge and motivational patterns within an individual. Rueda (2011)
explains cultural models as a shared understanding of how the world works or should
work. This shared understanding shape the way an organization works including values,
practices, and policies. Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) agree that the structures
and systems of the organization must be aligned to the organizational goals to increase
organizational outcomes. As such, it appears that the literature would support the
necessity for the organization to develop a willingness to align instruction and
professional development opportunities to the goal of incorporating technology into
instruction.
The organization provides teachers enough non-instructional time to
collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into instruction. The results and
findings of this study indicated that 77% of participants do not receive enough non-
instructional time to collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into instruction.
A principle rooted in organizational change theory has been selected to close this
resource gap. 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 resources are aligned with organizational priorities (Clark & Estes,
2008). This would suggest that ensuring resources are aligned with organizational
priorities is critical to organizational change. The recommendation then is to provide
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 110

teachers with regular, self-directed, non-instructional work time over the course of the
school year to collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into instruction.
Collinson and Tanya (2001) conducted research on how teachers' knowledge
about instructional technology was shared with other individuals as well as
organizational supports or barriers regarding sharing the teachers' knowledge. Ten
middle school teachers participated in a pre-interview survey and an interview that
lasted between an hour to an hour and a half. The researchers found the five most
common barriers to the dissemination of teacher knowledge included feeling
overwhelmed and a lack of discretionary time to learn, share with colleagues,
inadequate common time and a lack of designated time for sharing. Based on this study,
it is important to provide teachers with regular, self-directed, non-instructional work
time over the course of the school year to collaborate and reflect on integrating
technology into instruction.
The organization models of effective technology integration at each of the
SAMR levels so teachers know what each level “looks like.” The results and findings
of this study indicated that 61% of participants need models of effective technology
integration at each of the SAMR levels to know what each level “looks like.” A
principle rooted in sociocultural theory has been selected to close this resource gap.
Targeting training and instruction between the individual’s independent performance
level and their level of assisted performance promotes optimal learning (Scott &
Palincsar, 2006). This would suggest that teachers could be trained to extend existing
skills with rubrics to evaluate student performance to evaluate performance related to
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 111

technology. The recommendation then is to provide training to help teachers develop a
mental model for what technology integration looks like at each of the SAMR levels.
Jeong (2015) conducted a study on how language teacher ratings change when
scoring student work with or without using a rubric. Five participating teachers were
provided with 20 student essays to score by providing a letter grade, and an explanation
for the grade, as well as re-scoring five of the student essays using a rubric. The
researcher also interviewed the participating teachers regarding their scores. The results
of the study indicated that 72% of the essays were given a different score when using a
rubric. During the interviews, participants indicated that the rubric helped them consider
additional criteria that were not evaluated during the letter grade essay scoring. Based on
this study, a rubric is a complex scoring guide consisting of criteria, descriptors, and
scales. Teachers should be trained on rating practices as well as provided with each
criterion and examples of the descriptors. This supports the recommendation that
teachers be provided with training to help develop a mental model for what technology
integration looks like at each of the SAMR levels.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) informed
this implementation and evaluation plan. This new model is based on the original
Kirkpatrick Four-Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The new
model recommends developing an evaluation plan by starting with the organizational
goals and working backward to build a map for training. By following this method, it is
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 112

easier to align the “leading indicators” with recommended solutions and the
organization’s goals. This backward planning order of the New World Kirkpatrick Model
allows for the development of solutions based on assessed behaviors and the
identification of indicators of learning during implementation as well as indicators of
satisfaction with implementation strategies. Designing the implementation and evaluation
plan in this manner allows for stronger connections between the immediate solutions and
the larger organizational goal. Additionally, this method promotes “buy-in” from
organizational stakeholders in order to ensure successful implementation (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The purpose of BASD is to raise academic achievement and engage students in
programs and curriculum that inspire them to be productive critical thinkers who embrace
diversity, curiosity, and innovation. In order to achieve this mission, BASD has
determined that over the course of the next three years, students in BASD will
demonstrate their ability to present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of
digital tools and formats by analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as
individuals and in collaboration with their peers. This project examined the knowledge
and skills, motivational, and organizational barriers that prevent classroom teachers from
integrating instructional technology in a manner that supports students to successfully
communicate their thoughts and ideas in both written and verbal formats as measured by
student-created work. The proposed solution, a comprehensive training program, related
on-the-job supports, and a shift in the use of non-instructional teacher time, should
produce the desired outcome – an increase in the number of teachers who can effectively
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 113

integrate technology into instruction with a high level of rigor as measured by the SAMR
model.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 19 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form
of outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external and internal outcomes for BASD. If
the internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of the training and organizational
support for classroom teachers’ integration of technology into instruction, then the
external outcomes should also be realized.
Table 19

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Market/Industry Response
Increased recognition by
school board for
technology integration
The number of awards or
recognitions provided to each
school for technology
integration
Board meeting minutes
Customer Response
Increased parent and
community member
attendance at Presentation
of Learning events
The number of parents and
community members attending
Presentation of Learning events
Sign-in sheets at Presentation of
Learning events with site
administrator confirmation
Internal Outcomes
Compliance
Increased student usage of
technology to develop
work products
The percentage of student work
products developed with
technology
Teacher self-report of student
work products with supervisor
confirmation
Quality
Increased student work
products at levels three
The percentage of student
technology-based work products
developed at levels three and
Teacher self-report of student
work products with supervisor
confirmation
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 114

and four of the SAMR
model
four on the SAMR model.
Employee Satisfaction
Increased participation in
professional development
including specialized
component of technology
integration
The number of employees
attending professional
development events
Sign-in sheets at professional
development events with
supervisor confirmation
Employee Satisfaction
Increased teacher
confidence in integrating
technology at the four
SAMR levels
Teacher self-efficacy survey
results
Compare annual survey results

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the classroom teachers in
BASD. The first critical behavior is that teachers must correctly use the SAMR model
rubric to evaluate technology-based student work products with consistency. The second
critical behavior is that they must intentionally plan for the integration of instructional
technology across content areas. The third critical behavior is that they must reflect and
collaborate with peers on the effectiveness of technology integration into instruction. The
specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appear in
Table 20.
Table 20

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Use the SAMR
model rubric to
evaluate technology-
Scored student work
products
1a. Provide meeting
time for teachers to
calibrate for using the
1a. Biweekly
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 115

based student work
products with
consistency
SAMR rubric to assess
student work
1b. Instructional coach
or lead teacher monitor
calibration to SAMR
rubric
1b. Biweekly
2. Intentionally plan
for integration of
instructional
technology across
content areas
Teacher developed
lesson plans
2a. Provide technology
integration training as
part of all content area
professional
development
opportunities
2a. During back to
school teacher
trainings and
monthly thereafter
2b. Provide planning
time for technology
integration
2b. During back to
school teacher
trainings and
monthly thereafter
2c. Instructional coach
or lead teacher monitor
lesson plans for effective
technology integration
2c. During back to
school teacher
trainings and
monthly thereafter
3. Reflect and
collaborate with peers
on the effectiveness of
technology integration
into instruction
Professional Learning
Community (PLC)
meeting notes
3a. Provide meeting
time for teachers to
reflect and collaborate
on the effectiveness of
technology integration
into instruction
3a. Biweekly
3b. Instructional coach
or lead teacher facilitate
conversations to reflect
and collaborate on
technology integration
into instruction
3b. Biweekly

Required drivers. Classroom teachers require the support of their direct
supervisors and the organization to reinforce what they learn in training and to encourage
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 116

them to apply what they have learned to effectively integrate technology into instruction
at the four levels in the SAMR model. Rewards should be established for the
achievement of performance goals to enhance the organizational support of new
reviewers. Table 21 shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of
classroom teachers.
Table 21
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job aid including the steps to
identify tools for assessing the
rigor of instructional
technology integration
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Training through which a peer
model walks through the
process of assessing
technology integration into
instruction using a job aid
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Training through which a peer
model utilizes a job aid to
walk through the process of
integrating technology into
content area lesson planning
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Training with authentic
instructional technology
lessons, expertise-based
demonstrations, and practice
by teachers with feedback
from experienced teachers or
coaches
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 117

Set close, concrete, and
challenging goals that allow
the learner to experience
success at the task (Pajares,
2006).
Trimesterly 1, 2, 3
Include rationales about the
importance and utility value of
integrating technology-based
activities
Trimesterly 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
Public acknowledgment, such
as a mention at staff meetings,
when team performance hits a
benchmark in order to link
rewards with progress in order
to show improvement and
learning (Pintrich, 2003)
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Schedule consistent time for
individual and PLC meetings
for site administrator training
and oversight
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Conduct school administrator
meetings to communicate the
vision, mission and goals, and
individual and team
accomplishments
Quarterly 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. The aforementioned critical behaviors and required
drivers monitored for performance improvement are premised upon implementation of
recommendations at the organizational level. In this case, for the stakeholder to achieve
their goals the organization would need to ensure all professional development
opportunities include explicit messaging on how technology can help students more
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 118

effectively access the content and become better-prepared citizens as well as provide
formal opportunities for early adopters and instructional coaches to share the benefits of
incorporating instructional technology into instruction, and the increases in student
outcomes, during professional development opportunities. Additionally, teachers must be
provided with regular, self-directed, non-instructional work time over the course of the
school year to collaborate and reflect on integrating technology into instruction. The
organization must also provide training to help teachers develop a mental model for what
technology integration looks like at each of the SAMR levels.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, the
stakeholders will be able to:
1. Recognize the four levels of the SAMR model (D)
2. Classify instructional activities utilizing instructional technology according to
the four SAMR levels (D)
3. Use a SAMR based rubric to evaluate technology-based student work
products (P)
4. Identify ways instructional technology can be integrated into content areas (D)
5. Integrate instructional technology into content areas in a way that enhances
student access to content (P)
6. Determine when technology is effectively integrated into instruction (D)
7. Reflect on the effectiveness of the integration of technology into instruction
(D)
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 119

8. Generate a list of reasons why technology-based activities are valuable for
improving activities in the classroom (M)
9. Reflect on their self-efficacy for implementing technology-based activities in
the classroom (M)
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with
a training program that explores the effective integration of technology into instruction.
The learners, classroom teachers, will study the SAMR model for technology integration.
The program is blended, consisting of four professional development sessions and on-
going, twice-monthly coaching support during planning time. The total time for
completion is 1320 minutes (22 hours).
During the professional development sessions, learners will be provided a job aid
of the SAMR model level definitions, as well as a rubric of student work products at each
level. The job aids will be demonstrated by the professional development provider and
instructional coaches. The professional development provider will pause from time to
time to enable learners to discuss with other participants and check their understanding.
Following the demonstrations, the learners will be provided the opportunity to practice
using the job aids and receive feedback from the professional development provider and
instructional coaches. The demonstrations, practice, and feedback approach will also be
used to train the integration of technology into content areas.
During the coaching support sessions, the focus will be on applying what learners
have learned during professional development sessions. Instructional coaches and lead
teachers will discuss the value and benefits of effective technology integration and will
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 120

model how to intentionally plan for integration of technology into instruction across
content areas at all levels of the SAMR model.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Demonstrating declarative
knowledge is often necessary as a precursor to applying the knowledge to solve
problems. Based on this, it is important to evaluate to ensure both declarative and
procedural knowledge are taught. It is also important learners value the training as a
support for using their newly learned knowledge and skills on the job. Learners must
also be confident they can succeed in applying their knowledge and skills and be
committed to using them on the job. As such, Table 22 lists the evaluation methods and
timing for these components of learning.
Table 22
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice
questions to assess understanding of SAMR
model levels
At the end of quarterly professional
development sessions
Knowledge checks by instructional coaches
through observation of discussions, “pair,
think, share” and other individual/group
activities
During quarterly professional development
sessions, documented with observational notes
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Demonstrate individually, and in groups, the
ability to use job aids to successfully lesson
plan using the SAMR model
During quarterly professional development
sessions
Quality of the feedback from peers during
group sharing
During quarterly professional development
sessions
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 121

Individual application of the SAMR rubric
skills for lesson planning and assessment of
student work
During quarterly professional development
sessions and coaching support sessions
Pre- and post-test assessment survey asking
participants about their level of proficiency
with SAMR before and after the training
At the beginning and end of each quarterly
professional development session
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Professional development providers’
observation of participants’ statements and
actions demonstrating that they see the benefit
of what they are being asked to do on the job
During quarterly professional development
sessions
Instructional coaches’ observations of
participants’ statements and actions
demonstrating that they see the benefit of what
they are being asked to do on the job
During bi-weekly instructional coaching
sessions
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do on the job
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do on the job
Post-test assessment survey asking participants
about their belief in the value of the SAMR
model before and after the training
At the beginning and end of each quarterly
professional development session
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Post-test assessment survey asking participants
about their belief in their ability to apply the
SAMR model before and after the training
At the end of each quarterly professional
development session
Discussions following practice and feedback

During bi-weekly instructional coaching
sessions
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback

During bi-weekly instructional coaching
sessions
Create an individual action plan

During quarterly professional development
sessions
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item
After the quarterly professional development
sessions

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 122

Level 1: Reaction
Evaluating stakeholder reactions and participation involvement in learning at
level 1 is both formative and summative (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Formative
reactions at level 1 are measured through learner comfort, engagement, and satisfaction.
Summative reactions are gathered immediately or shortly after training is completed. Not
only should completing a summative reaction evaluation be voluntary and reflective, but
it should also ask the participants about the relevance of the content, the quality of the
venue and presenters, as well as the relevance with respect to the application of learning
and use of time. Table 23 outlines the methods for measuring classroom teacher reactions
in terms of engagement, relevancy, and satisfaction with regards to the professional
development and instructional coaching events.
Table 23
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Completion of lesson planning template During quarterly professional development
sessions
Observation by professional development
provider and instructional coaches
During quarterly professional development
sessions
Observation by instructional coaches During quarterly professional development
sessions and bi-monthly instructional coaching
sessions
Attendance During quarterly professional development
sessions and bi-monthly instructional coaching
sessions
Course evaluation Two weeks after quarterly professional
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 123

development sessions
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants via survey
(online) and discussion (ongoing)
During and after quarterly professional
development sessions
Professional development evaluation Two weeks after quarterly professional
development sessions
Instructional coaching evaluation Each trimester after instructional coaching
sessions
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants via survey
(online) and discussion (ongoing)
During and after quarterly professional
development sessions
Professional development evaluation Two weeks after quarterly professional
development sessions
Instructional coaching evaluation Each trimester after instructional coaching
sessions

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. During the professional
development portion of the training, the instructor will conduct periodic brief pulse-
checks by asking the participants about the relevance of the content to their work and the
organization, delivery, and learning environment. Level 2 will include checks for
understanding using the completion of the lesson planning template and observation of
participant conversations. At the end of the training, the instructor will administer the
level 1 and 2 evaluation instrument provided in Appendix A.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately six
weeks after the implementation of the training, and then again at 15 weeks, leadership
will administer a survey containing open and scaled items using the Blended Evaluation
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 124

approach to measure, from the participant’s perspective, satisfaction and relevance of the
training (level 1), confidence and value of applying their training (level 2), application of
the training to lesson planning for the integration of technology into instruction (level 3),
and the extent to which their confidence with technology integration has increased,
decreased, or maintained at the same level.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The level 4 goal of classroom teachers is measured by the ability to integrate
instructional technology into weekly lesson plans using the SAMR model rubric. Each
week, the reviewer will track the number of lessons completed at each of the SAMR
levels based on teacher lesson plans. The dashboard below will report the data on these
measures as a monitoring and accountability tool. Similar dashboards will be created to
monitor Levels 1, 2, and 3.
Table 24
Integration of Technology Progress
Action/Result Target Actual Previous
Month
Rating
Apply knowledge of how to use SAMR to
integrate instructional technology during
lesson planning each week
100% 80% 75%
☺
On average, each week 5 or more lessons
are taught at the Substitution or
Augmentation level
50% 20% 15%
☺
On average, each week 5 or more lessons
are taught at the Modification or
Redefinition level
50% 10% 10%

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 125

Summary
The framework used for this evaluation was the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model focuses on the development of proposed
solutions, the creation of implementation plans, and a roadmap for an overall evaluation
of the plan. BASD’s organizational goal is for students to demonstrate their ability to
present acquired knowledge through the use of a variety of digital tools and formats by
analyzing, synthesizing, and creating work both as individuals and in collaboration with
their peers. The goal for the key stakeholder of focus, classroom teachers, is all
classroom teachers will be trained and able to apply the skills necessary for students to
successfully communicate their thoughts and ideas in both written and verbal formats as
measured by student-created work presented at Presentation of Learning events.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) begins
with the end result or desired outcome to ensure everyone in the organization is striving
to achieve the same goal (level 4). Next, the model helps the organization determine and
monitor critical behaviors and required drivers that are needed once the classroom
teachers are back at their school sites and beginning to implement the strategic plan (level
3). The next focus measures the degree to which participants develop additional
knowledge, improve skills and attitudes, and develop increased confidence and
commitment to achieve their goals (level 2). In the case of classroom teachers, many
teachers may not be familiar with utilizing the SAMR model to intentionally plan for
technology integration at multiple levels of rigor. Helping classroom teachers learn how
to utilize the SAMR rubric for lesson planning and student work assessment will help
close this knowledge gap. Finally, the evaluation process focuses on the engagement,
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 126

relevance, and overall customer satisfaction during professional development (level 1).
This level is important to address in order to ensure all of the participants are actively
engaged and focused on achieving both their own goals and the goals of the organization.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The study had limitations that the reader should take into consideration when
evaluating its relevance. Most of the limitations for consideration were discussed in
Chapter 3. The study was conducted in one elementary school district in Northern
California and it does not reflect all elementary school districts in the state or country.
The results and findings of this study cannot be used to generalize recommendations to
other elementary school districts based on the sample size. The time constraints and the
voluntary nature of the study limited the sample to 48 classroom teachers surveyed and
three classroom teachers interviewed and observed. Redundancy in data collection was
not attained. With more time, a larger number of interviews and classroom observations
could have led to more data being collected.
Through the research and analysis process, the researcher developed an
understanding that was not present at the initial stages of the research design. This
limitation is common to all research and not specific to this dissertation. With these
limitations and delimitations in mind, the methods used in this research could prove
beneficial for other elementary school districts who would benefit from applying the
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis process in a comparable manner.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 127

Recommendations for Future Research
There are many opportunities for future research in relation to this study. Given
the limitations of this study based on the timing of the data collection, future research
could include repeating the study earlier in the school year, which may be more
beneficial to teacher participation. Additionally, the design of this study could be
adapted for use in other elementary school districts. With more time, future research
could investigate additional data related to other stakeholder groups, including site
administrators and elementary students, to record their perspective on the effective
integration of technology into instruction in order to compare and contrast it with the data
collected from classroom teachers.
Future research could expand the study beyond an elementary school district to
include related high school districts, or unified districts, and the role of effectively
evaluating the vertical alignment across schools with respect to the integration of
instructional technology. It would also be valuable to study the role collaboration plays
in the integration of technology into instruction. Some examples of these studies could
include: how teacher leaders guide the development of technology integration across
grade level or content teams, the effects of lesson studies on the integration of
technology, and the role of vertical alignment of technology initiatives within the district.
A study of the vertical alignment of initiatives within the district could look at how the
initiative is implemented at the district, site, and classroom levels as well as examining
the allocation of resources at the district and site levels including financial budgets,
professional development, and meeting time. Finally, future research could be driven by
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 128

a different conceptual framework to explore similar data sets and identify different
findings and recommendations.
Conclusion
Elementary schools are tasked with preparing children to be the future of the
country. Part of this charge is for schools to develop students as creators of media rather
than just consumers. Schools must prepare teachers to instruct the technology skills
required to be successful with the Common Core State Standards (Empowering Learning:
A Blueprint for California Educational Technology, 2014). The key stakeholders within
the school system include site administrators, instructional coaches, classroom teachers,
and students. This research focused on the stakeholder group with the most direct
influence on the integration of technology into instruction: classroom teachers.
According to the Clark and Estes (2008) framework, effective implementation of
technology is highly dependent on the knowledge and motivation of classroom teachers
as well as the organizational influences that surround them.
This study focused on identifying which gaps are the most impactful with respect
to classroom teachers integrating technology into instruction. It allowed to identify gaps
that hindered effective integration of instructional technology by the classroom teacher
and demonstrated that knowledge and organizational gaps were more significant than
motivation gaps. Cultural models and settings around professional development and
consistent, structured planning time that affects teachers’ ability to plan for, and reflects
on, the integration of technology into instruction were the foremost organizational gaps
identified. The study developed an improvement plan based on the Kirkpatrick and
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 129

Kirkpatrick (2016) model that has the potential to help the school district improve how
classroom teachers may develop the skills to effectively integrate technology into
instruction.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 130

References
Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009).
Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communication technology.
International Journal of Instruction, 2(1), 77-104.
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Creikshank, K. A., Mayer,
R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrick, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for
learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of
educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon. Boston, MA (Pearson Education Group).
American Psychological Association. (2019). Socioeconomic status. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status/
Attewell, P. (2001). Comment: The first and second digital divides. Sociology of
Education, 74(3), 252-259. doi:10.2307/2673277
Becker, H. J. (2000). Who's wired and who's not: Children's access to and use of
computer technology. The Future of Children, 10(2), 44-75. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1602689?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van, d. B. (2002). Observational learning and the
effects of model-observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2),
405-415. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-13338-015

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 131

Brenner, A. M., & Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating practices in teacher education that
promote and inhibit technology integration transfer in early career teachers.
TechTrends, 60(2), 136-144. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s11528-016-0025-8
Brown, M. R. (2000). Access, instruction, and barriers. Remedial and Special Education,
21(3), 182. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/074193250002100309
Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., & Stromfors, C., Hernandez Van-Nest,
M., ... Sutton, J. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teacher training
program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 51(1), 57. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02504518
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor (2018). Occupational outlook
handbook, kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/kindergarten-and-
elementary-school-teachers.htm
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. (2018). 2017 test results for
English language arts/literacy and mathematics. [Data file.] Retrieved from
https://caaspp.cde.ca.gov
Carr, J. E. (2013) What is the impact of full access to technology on the achievement of
the hispanic student? Available from ERIC. (1651840093; ED550588). Retrieved
from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/123850/
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 132

Carver, L. B. (2016). Teacher perception of barriers and benefits in K-12 technology
usage. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1).
Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1086185
Chai, C. S., Joyce Hwee, L. K., & Chin-Chung, T. (2010). Facilitating preservice
teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge
(TPACK). Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Collinson, V., & Tanya, F. C. (2001). "I don't have enough time": Teachers'
interpretations of time as a key to learning and school change. Journal of
Educational Administration, 39(3), 266-281. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235275560_I_don't_have_enough_time
_-_Teachers'_interpretations_of_time_as_a_key_to_learning_and_school_change
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dangel, J. R., Guyton, E., & McIntyre, C. B. (2004). Constructivist pedagogy in primary
classrooms: Learning from teachers and their classrooms. Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 24(4), 237-245. Retrieved from https://www-
tandfonline-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/doi/abs/10.1080/1090102040240404
Demir, M., Tananis, C. A., & Trahan, K. W. (2019). Evaluation of alternative assessment
methods used in elementary schools. Egitim Ve Bilim, 44(197) Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2186795440?accountid=14749
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 133

Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Du, L., Nuzzolo, R., & Alonso-Álvarez, B. (2016). Potential benefits of video training on
fidelity of staff protocol implementation. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 21(1),
110-121. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/bdb0000019
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-
theory/
Educational Data Partnership. (2018). Bay Area School District. [Data file]. Retrieved
from http://www.ed-data.org
Engelbrecht, W., & Ankiewicz, P. (2016). Criteria for continuing professional
development of technology teachers' professional knowledge: A theoretical
perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2),
259-284. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330207339_Evaluation_of_Alternative_
Assessment_Methods_Used_in_Elementary_Schools
Fink, A. (2013). The survey form. In How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th
ed.) (pp. 29-56). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Franklin, C. (2007). Factors that influence elementary teachers use of computers. Journal
of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 267-293. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/do
cview/200003278?accountid=14749
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 134

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56.
Glesne, C. (2011). But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gross, D., Truesdale, C., & Bielec, S. (2001). Backs to the wall: Supporting teacher
professional development with technology. Educational Research and
Evaluation, 7(2), 161-183.
Heffernan, V. (2010, September 16). Drill, baby, drill. The New York Times. Retrieved
from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/magazine/19fob-medium-heffernan-
t.html
Henderson, R., & Honan, E. (2008). Digital literacies in two low socioeconomic
classrooms: Snapshots of practice. English Teaching, 7(2), 85. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ832210.pdf
Hernández-Ramos, P. (2005). If not here, where? Understanding teachers' use of
technology in Silicon Valley Schools. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 38(1), 39-64. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ719937.pdf
Hertberg-Davis, H., & Brighton, C. M. (2006). Support and sabotage: Principals'
influence on middle school teachers' responses to differentiation. The Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 90-102,122. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.4219/jsge-2006-685
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 135

Hsu, P. (2016). Examining current beliefs, practices and barriers about technology
integration: A case study. TechTrends, 60(1), 30-40. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1090180
Huang, J., & Russell, S. (2006). The digital divide and academic achievement. The
Electronic Library, 24(2), 160-173.
I-Hua, C., Chin, J. M., & Cheng-Mei, H. (2008). Teachers' perceptions of the dimensions
and implementation of technology leadership of principals in Taiwanese
elementary schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 229-
n/a. Retrieved from https://www.j-ets.net/ETS/journals/11_4/17.pdf
Intel Guide to Monitoring eLearning Programs. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.k12blueprint.com/sites/default/files/Class_Observation.pdf
Jeong, H. (2015). Rubrics in the classroom: Do teachers really follow them?Language
Testing in Asia, 5(1), 1-14.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1186/s40468-015-0013-5
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Chapter 9.
Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention
to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy,and technology acceptance
model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48-59. Retrieved
from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40468-015-0013-5

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 136

Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Bell, S. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the
early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1),
52-60,64. Retrieved from https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/closing-
the-digital-divide-update-from-the-early-childhood-longit
Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Cabuk, B. (2004). Digital equity: New findings from the early
childhood longitudinal study*. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
36(4), 383-396. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ690936.pdf
Kafyulilo, A., & Keengwe, J. (2014). Teachers' perspectives on their use of ICT in
teaching and learning: A case study. Education and Information Technologies,
19(4), 913-923. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-
013-9259-7
Kale, U., & Akcaoglu, M. (2018). The role of relevance in future teachers’ utility value
and interest toward technology. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 66(2), 283-311. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11423-017-9547-9
Kalyanpur, M., & Kirmani, M. H. (2005). Diversity and technology: Classroom
implications of the digital divide. Journal of Special Education Technology,
20(4), 9-18. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/016264340502000402
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training
evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 137

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating
technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue
better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654307309921?journalCode=r
era
Lee, T. L. (2013). Educational technology and equity: Students access to and use of
computers in low-socioeconomic and middle-class socioeconomic schools
Available from ERIC. (1773213484; ED563136). Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED563136
Li, S., Yamaguchi, S., & Takada, J. (2018). Understanding factors affecting primary
school teachers' use of ICT for student-centered education in Mongolia.
International Journal of Education and Development using Information and
Communication Technology, 14(1), 103-117. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1178363.pdf
Light, J. S. (2001). Rethinking the digital divide. Harvard Educational Review, 71(4),
709-733. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ638584
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision
making in education. RAND Education Occasional Paper. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation. Available at:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170.html
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 138

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mirzajani, H., Mahmud, R., Fauzi, M. A., & Wong, S. L. (2016). Teachers'
acceptance of ICT and its integration in the classroom. Quality Assurance in
Education, 24(1), 26-40.
Mitchell, G. W., Wohleb, E. C., & Skinner, L. B. (2016). Perceptions of public educators
regarding accessibility to technology and the importance of integrating
technology across the curriculum. The Journal of Research in Business
Education, 57(2), 14-25. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/do
cview/1863560051?accountid=14749
Moore, J. L., Laffey, J. M., Espinosa, L. M., & Lodree, A. W. (2002). Bridging the digital
divide for at-risk students: Lessons learned. TechTrends, 46(2), 5. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ654206
Morelock, J. S. (2016). Effective technology implementation in schools: Differing
perceptions of teachers, administrators, and technology staff (Order No.
AAI3742845). Available from PsycINFO. (1850193598; 2016-42142-107).
Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/37774905.pdf
Moursund, D. (1989). Effective inservice for integrating computer-as-tool into the
curriculum. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED325109)
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 139

Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2011). A blueprint for great
schools: Transition advisory team report. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/bp/documents/yr11bp0709.pdf
Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2014). Empowering learning: A
blueprint for California educational technology, 2014-2017. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/yr14bp0418.pdf
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in observation. Newbury Park:
SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand
Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Pedagogy. (n.d.). In Cambridge English Dictionary. Retrieved from
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pedagogy
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95(4), 667–686.
Pittman, T., & Gaines, T. (2015). Technology integration in third, fourth and fifth-grade
classrooms in a Florida school district. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 63(4), 539-554. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s11423-015-9391-8

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 140

Pomerantz, E. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (2017). The role of parenting in children's
motivation and competence: What underlies facilitative parenting? In A. J. Elliot,
C. S. Dweck & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), 2nd ed.; handbook of competence and
motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed.) (2nd ed. ed., pp. 566-585, Chapter
xiv, 722 Pages) Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Puentedura, R. (2014, September 24). SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy: Assembling the
Puzzle. Retrieved from https://www.commonsense.org/education/blog/samr-and-
blooms-taxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle
Reinhart, J. M., Thomas, E., & Toriskie, J. M. (2011). K- 12 teachers: Technology use
and the second level digital divide. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 38(3),
181-193. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ966923
Revised Bloom's Taxonomy. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching/effective-teaching-practices/revised-blooms-
taxonomy/
Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2012). Analysing teacher knowledge
for technology education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 22(3), 271-280.
Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2010). Reviewing the relations
between teachers' knowledge and pupils' attitude in the field of primary
technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 20(1), 15-26.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York:
Teachers College Press.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 141

Sahin, I. (2011). Development of survey of technological pedagogical and content
knowledge (TPACK). TOJET : The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(1)
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using
Microsoft Excel 2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Scott, S. & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/ reference/article/sociocultural-theory/
Song, H., Kidd, T., & Owens, E. (2009). Examining technological disparities and
instructional practices in english language arts classroom: Implications for school
leadership and teacher training. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education, 5(1), 17-37.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications & Information
Administration. (2016). Digital nation data explorer: Internet use at work [Data
file]. Retrieved from: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/data/digital-nation-data-
explorer#sel=workInternetUser&disp=map
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of
Education Statistics, 2015 (NCES 2016-014), Chapter 7. Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 142

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS). (2012). Public school teacher data file 2011–12.
Retrieved from:
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass1112_2013314_t12n_003.asp
Varol, F. (2013). Elementary school teachers and teaching with technology. TOJET: The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(3) Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1016857
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654308330970
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wepner, S. B., & Tao, L. (2002). From master teacher to master novice: Shifting
responsibilities in technology-infused classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 55(7),
642-651. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20205112?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Wiggins, G. (1998). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi
Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703-713.
Wisdom, J. P., White, N., Goldsmith, K., Bielavitz, S., Rees, A., & Davis, C. (2007).
Systems limitations hamper integration of accessible information technology in
northwest U.S. K-12 schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
10(3) Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ814061

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 143

APPENDIX A: Quantitative Survey (Phase I)
1. I am __ years old.
2. I am __ (male/female/gender non-conforming).
3. I have completed __ years working at BASD.
4. I teach __ grade.
5. I teach at __ school.
6. Please select all of the instructional technology that is accessible to staff at your
school.
❏ Document camera
❏ Projector
❏ Chromebook (or equivalent)
❏ Tablet ( i.e. iPad or equivalent)
❏ Laptop
❏ Digital camera
❏ Smartboard (or equivalent)
❏ eReader (i.e. Kindle or equivalent)
❏ Desktop computer
❏ Other
7. Please select all of the instructional technology that is accessible to students at
your school.
❏ Document camera
❏ Projector
❏ Chromebook (or equivalent)
❏ Tablet ( i.e. iPad or equivalent)
❏ Laptop
❏ Digital camera
❏ Smartboard (or equivalent)
❏ eReader (i.e. Kindle or equivalent)
❏ Desktop computer
❏ Other
8. Please indicate your level of familiarity with the SAMR model.
❏ I have not heard of the SAMR model
❏ I have heard of SAMR, but I am not familiar with the model
❏ I have heard of the model and I am familiar with the levels
❏ I can explain the SAMR levels to another educator
9. How would you classify the following instructional technology activity?
Students are asked to develop an individual slideshow presentation about the unit
of study.
❏ Substitution for a paper/pencil task
❏ Augmentation that slightly improves a paper/pencil task
❏ Modification that significantly redesigns a paper/pencil task
❏ Redefinition that allows for a new task which could not be completed with
paper/pencil
10. How would you classify the following instructional technology activity?
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 144

Students are asked to collaborate digitally (i.e. Google Docs) to write a research
paper about their unit of study.
❏ Substitution for a paper/pencil task
❏ Augmentation that slightly improves a paper/pencil task
❏ Modification that significantly redesigns a paper/pencil task
❏ Redefinition that allows for a new task which could not be completed with
paper/pencil
11. How would you classify the following instructional technology activity?
Students use a computer-based intervention program (i.e. reading, math, etc.) for
20 minutes a day.
❏ Substitution for a paper/pencil task
❏ Augmentation that slightly improves a paper/pencil task
❏ Modification that significantly redesigns a paper/pencil task
❏ Redefinition that allows for a new task which could not be completed with
paper/pencil
12. I feel comfortable with my ability to integrate technology-based activities in the
classroom.
❏ Strongly agree
❏ Somewhat agree
❏ Neither agree nor disagree
❏ Somewhat disagree
❏ Strongly disagree
13. My school provides me with __ minutes a month to collaborate and reflect on
integrating technology into instruction.
0 1-30 31-60 61-90 91+
14. Technology helps students become better prepared to be producers of information
in society.
❏ Strongly agree
❏ Somewhat agree
❏ Neither agree nor disagree
❏ Somewhat disagree
❏ Strongly disagree
15. Teachers at SBPSD believe technology can help students become better prepared
citizens.
❏ Strongly agree
❏ Somewhat agree
❏ Neither agree nor disagree
❏ Somewhat disagree
❏ Strongly disagree
16. SBPSD has provided me with models of what effective technology integration
“looks like” in a classroom.
❏ Strongly agree
❏ Somewhat agree
❏ Neither agree nor disagree
❏ Somewhat disagree
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 145

❏ Strongly disagree
17. Any additional comments?
18. I am interested in participating in a follow-up interview and classroom visit.
❏ Yes
❏ No

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 146

APPENDIX B: Interview Protocol (Phase II)
You have been selected to speak with me today because you responded that you
would be willing to be interviewed regarding technology and instruction. My research
project focuses on the integration of learning technology, with particular interest in the
supports needed for teachers to integrate technology into planning and instruction. The
study is not designed to evaluate your techniques, experiences, or level of technology
integration. Rather, I am trying to learn more about learning technology in education and,
hopefully, learn about practices that help improve student learning in elementary school
districts.
This interview has been scheduled to last no longer than one hour. During this
time, I have twelve questions that I would like to cover with you. If we begin to run out
of time, it may be necessary to shorten your responses in order to get to all of the
questions.
In order to better be able to focus on what you are saying, I would like to audio
tape our conversation today. Is that ok with you? Please sign the release form. For your
information, the recording will be assigned a pseudonym to protect your identity and the
recording will eventually be destroyed after it is transcribed. Also, there is a form
regarding informed consent. Essentially, it states that all information will be confidential,
your participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable,
and I do not intend to inflict any harm. If you are in agreement, please sign here. Thank
you again for agreeing to participate.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 147

1. Tell me about the technology and software you use in your classroom.
Prompt: How often? For what purpose? What is the desired learning outcome?
(K, Experience/Behavior)
2. Tell me about a typical lesson in which you use learning technology. (K,
Hypothetical)
3. In your opinion, what is the role of learning technology in student learning? (V,
Hypothetical)
4. In your opinion, how might a teacher effectively incorporate technology into their
instructional plans? (V, Opinion)
5. How does a teacher at your school measure the impact of learning technology on
academic achievement? (K, Hypothetical)
6. Could you please describe any ways you know of to measure the rigor of
technology integration in the classroom? (K, Experience/Behavior)
7. Could you please describe any district or school supports you are aware of related
to technology?
Prompt: Some examples might include professional development, planning or
release time, coaching… (O, Experience/Behavior)
8. Some teachers find that professional development in learning technology does not
align well with their areas of strength and need. What has been your experience
with professional development related to learning technology? (M, Devil’s
Advocate)
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 148

9. Could you please describe the experience last time you received support related to
instructional technology?
Prompt: What were some successes? What were some challenges? (M, Sensory)
10. Could you please describe any experiences you have had with attempting to
transform a traditional paper and pencil task to a technology based activity?
Prompt: What was the original activity and how did the teacher attempt to
transform it? What were some successes? What were some challenges? (M,
Experience/Behavior)
11. Please describe the last time you or another teacher requested support with
integrating technology into instruction and how that went. (O, Sensory)
12. Please walk me through a learning technology based task students could complete
in your classroom with real world applications. (K, Hypothetical)
13. What additional support do you feel is needed to support teachers with effective
technology integration?
Prompt: Things to improve at the school, things you wish you could do differently,
barriers/challenges to integration, supports for more effective integration
That was our last question. Thank you so much for your time today. As I mentioned
previously, our conversation will be kept confidential and I appreciate your willingness to
support this research project.

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 149

APPENDIX C: Observation Protocol (Phase III)
Part 1: Background Information
Observer: Subject:
Observation Date: Observation Time:
School Name: Teacher Name:
# students: # boys: # girls: Grade:
Teacher’s stated goals
for lesson:

Physical arrangement
of classroom:

Technology in the
room:

Part 2: Observation Notes
Structure of the Lesson
Observations Observer Notes

Interactions Among Students
Observations Observer Notes

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 150

Use of the Technology/Devices
Observations Observer Notes

Use of Other Resources
Observations Observer Notes

Other Observations
Observations Observer Notes

Observer Reflection
What is the teacher’s overall approach to classroom instruction?

Did the students seem to be clear on the procedure of the activity or confused?

How did students respond to the technology used?

Was there anything about the technology that seemed difficult for the teacher or students to
do? Did any technology challenges interfere with the lesson?

Adapted from Intel Guide to Monitoring eLearning Programs
https://www.k12blueprint.com/sites/default/files/Class_Observation.pdf

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 151

APPENDIX D: Sample Post-Training Survey Items
Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1 and 2
1. The SAMR training was interesting to me. (L1: Engagement)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
2. This SAMR training was relevant to my work. (L1: Relevance)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
3. I found my training experience today satisfying. (L1: Customer Satisfaction)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
4. From the definitions below, choose the one that most closely describes your
understanding of integration of instructional technology: (L2: Declarative
Knowledge)
a. Providing teachers with access to instructional technology devices
b. Providing students with access to instructional technology devices
c. Presenting lesson content utilizing instructional technology
d. Requiring students to generate work products utilizing instructional
technology
5. On the SAMR rubric shown below, how should a student report utilizing software
consisting of presentation slides be classified? (L2: Procedural Knowledge)
a. Substitution
b. Augmentation
c. Modification
d. Redefinition
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 152

6. Understanding how to classify technology-based student work products is
valuable to my work. (L2: Attitude)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
7. I feel confident I can use the SAMR rubric to intentionally plan for integration of
instructional technology into content areas. (L2: Confidence)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
8. I am committed to applying my knowledge of how to use SAMR to integrate
instructional technology during lesson planning each week going forward. (L2:
Commitment)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree

EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 153

APPENDIX E: Sample Blended Evaluation Items
Measuring Kirkpatrick Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4
1. The SAMR training information has been applicable to my recent work. (L1:
Relevance)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
2. What information was most relevant? (L1: Relevance)
3. What information should be added to this training in the future to increase its
relevance to classroom teachers? (L1: Relevance)
4. What information, if any, do you feel was missing from training? (L2:
Knowledge, Skills)
5. How has your confidence using instructional technology changed since training?
(L2: Confidence)
Less confident, Same confidence, More confident
6. I have successfully applied what I learned in training to my work. (L3: Transfer)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
7. If you selected Strongly Disagree or Disagree for #7 above, please indicate the
reasons (check all that apply): (L3: Transfer)
a. What I learned is not relevant to my work.
b. I do not have the necessary knowledge and skills.
c. I do not feel confident applying what I learned to my work.
d. I do not have the resources I need to apply what I learned to my work.
e. I do not believe applying what I learned will make a difference.
f. No one is monitoring what I am or am not doing.
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY 154

g. Other (please explain):
8. I feel encouraged to apply what I learned by my principal. (L3: Required Drivers -
Encouraging)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
9. I have time with my principal and peers to share success stories and troubleshoot
challenges related to what I learned. (L3: Required Drivers - Encouraging)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
10. I have been or will be rewarded for successfully applying what I learned. (L3:
Required Drivers - Rewarding)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
11. I am able to apply my knowledge of how to use SAMR to integrate instructional
technology during lesson planning each week. (L4: Results)
Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree
12. On average, each week I teach the following number of lessons at the Substitution
or Augmentation level. (L4: Results)
0, 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10 or more
13. On average, each week I teach the following number of lessons at the
Modification or Redefinition level. (L4: Results)
0, 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10 or more

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The evidence highlights that California is struggling to achieve the State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s vision for education technology to be “as effective and productive a tool in the school environment as it is in the world beyond schools” (A Blueprint for Great Schools, 2011, p.12). The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which Bay Area School District (BASD) is meeting its goals with respect to technology integration. Questions that guided the evaluation study address the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization influences for classroom teachers within the school district. Based on a review of the literature, data collection included classroom teacher participation in an online survey followed by interviews and classroom observations as well as a lesson plan review. Analysis of the data demonstrated a need for professional development systems around the integration of technology into instruction. The results indicate that professional development, if provided, typically consists of a one-session presentation without additional support. On this basis, it is recommended that BASD implement a professional development system that consists of professional development sessions, which include structured planning time and coaching support to guide effective integration over the course of the school year. Further research is needed to identify other factors that could strengthen the integration of technology into classroom instruction.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Instructional technology integration in a parochial school district: an evaluation study

PDF

Building data use capacity through school leaders: an evaluation study

PDF

The challenges teachers face effectively implementing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula: an evaluation study

PDF

A teacher's use of data to support classroom instruction in an urban elementary school

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Implementation of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program in an urban secondary school: an improvement practice to address closing the achievement gap

PDF

Using digital marketing to reach students in graduate school admissions: an innovation study

PDF

STEM teacher education: An evaluation study

PDF

Educator professional development for technology in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

E-TECH professional development: a Mountain View University initiative

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study

PDF

Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers

PDF

Professional development at an international school

PDF

Teachers' perspectives on the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom: a gap analysis

PDF

Evaluation study: building teacher efficacy in K8 computer science integration

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

Asset Metadata

Creator Aguirre, Julie (author)

Core Title Effective implementation of technology in elementary schools: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/15/2019

Defense Date 10/21/2019

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

Tag elementary education,Integration,OAI-PMH Harvest,Technology

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hasan, Angela (committee chair), Aguilar, Stephen (committee member), Kemp, Stella (committee member)

Creator Email julieagu@usc.edu,ms.j.a.aguirre@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-236844

Unique identifier UC11673577

Identifier etd-AguirreJul-7933.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-236844 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AguirreJul-7933.pdf

Dmrecord 236844

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Aguirre, Julie

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