Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Educational technology integration: a search for best practices
(USC Thesis Other)
Educational technology integration: a search for best practices
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Educational Technology Integration: A Search for Best Practices
by
Jessica Gardner
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2021
© Copyright by Jessica Gardner 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Jessica Gardner certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Kathy Stowe
Jennifer Phillips
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
Across the United States, educational technology in K–12 classrooms expands each year in terms
of funding, development, research, and application. Most schools and individuals have
ubiquitous access to technologies such as devices and software. Teachers in graduate schools
often take educational technology courses, and the field is its own course of study at many major
universities. The global COVID-19 pandemic, which began in 2020, sped up the already rapidly
increasing use of technologies in schools. Yet, research still lags on how to implement these
technologies most effectively to improve student outcomes. Grounded in the Burke Litwin
framework, this dissertation examined the external, transformational, transactional, and
individual factors affecting technology implantation in K–12 schools across the United States to
determine implementation best practices and drive organizational change to reflect such
practices. This study applied qualitative research methodology through the collection of
interview data. Educational technology specialists were interviewed based on their expertise and
experience. Three overarching findings emerged. The first was that effective educational
technology implementation follows, and relies on, effective pedagogical practices and is
typically student-centered. The second was that to be effective, educational technology initiatives
need to align with the school’s mission, vision, and culture. A top-down approach best serves to
implement these initiatives. Third, the goal of implementation is for students to understand how
and when to appropriately leverage technology to improve or enhance their self-identified
intended outcomes. Based on the interview results, in conjunction with a review of the literature,
this study outlined recommendations aimed at improving educational technology implementation
practices.
v
Dedication
To my mom, Patricia, for being not only the best parent one can imagine, but also just the best
human. What a role model we all have.
To my grandparents, Nanie and Tati, for your unwavering love and support.
To Ksenia, my number one everything.
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to especially thank Dr. Malloy, my dissertation chair, who provided
extremely beneficial, and much needed, feedback, support, and guidance during this process. I
would also like to thank my dissertation committee members, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Stowe, for
their support and feedback along the way.
I would like to thank my sisters Sarah, Natalie, and Amanda for their support and love;
my entire California family including dad, aunts, cousins, and Tim; my friends, especially Beth,
Mary, and Jamie; and my Cooke network for their support.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem .............................................................................2
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .....................................................5
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ...................................................................5
Importance of the Study .......................................................................................................6
Definitions ............................................................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................10
History of Technology in Schools .....................................................................................10
Technology Integration Impacts on Student Outcomes .....................................................14
Effective Integration Best Practices ...................................................................................15
Integration Challenges .......................................................................................................20
Burke-Litwin Framework ..................................................................................................21
Summary ............................................................................................................................26
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................28
Participating Stakeholders: Criteria and Rationale ............................................................28
Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................................................30
Credibility, Validity, and Trustworthiness .........................................................................32
Ethics ..................................................................................................................................32
viii
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................34
Participants .........................................................................................................................34
Results and Findings ..........................................................................................................36
Summary ............................................................................................................................51
Chapter Five: Discussion ...............................................................................................................54
Discussion ..........................................................................................................................54
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................59
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................63
Future Research .................................................................................................................63
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................65
References ......................................................................................................................................67
Appendix: Interview Protocol ........................................................................................................85
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Burke-Litwin Factors and Educational Technology Integration Examples 25
Table 2: Participant Data 35
Table 3: Summary of Findings with Connected External, Transformational, and
Transactional Factor Influences 36
Table 4: Summary of Findings Organized by Research Question 53
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change 22
1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Educational technology can encompass a broad range of tools and services and generally
includes the knowledge regarding the use of technological resources and processes to facilitate
learning (Davies, 2011). Government initiatives combined with corporate partnerships since the
1980s have pushed states to adopt and integrate educational technology in K–12 schools to
produce digitally literate adults and enhance the learning process through the use of technology
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Since then, the availability of educational technology and
general knowledge surrounding computer literacy increased in K–12 schools across the United
States (Culp et al., 2005). Further, the COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020 pushed schools
around the world to adopt online learning and the various technological tools and processes that
came along with it (Kaden, 2020).
However, effective integration of this technology into schools to deliver these outcomes
has not followed suit (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Studies show disappointing results for the
integration of technologies into schools (Peeraer & Petegem, 2012). This has been attributed to
internal and external factors influencing schools’ implementation plans, including
misunderstandings between technology adoption and technology integration (Davies, 2011).
Blumenfeld et al. (2000) argued that educational technology implementation often fails due to
organizational culture, policies, or structures. There are some suggested, and often conflicting,
best practices for technology integration, yet there is no consensus on what works best. This
problem is important to address because effective technology integration in K–12 schools can
improve student outcomes in terms of academic achievement, personalized learning, digital
literacy, and career readiness (Bulman & Fairlie, 2016).
2
Context and Background of the Problem
The definition of educational technology as used in this study can best be understood by
exploring the definitions created by experts in the field over time. Before 1963, educational
technology mostly meant instructional media, focusing on using technology to present
information (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012). In 1963, the first widespread use of a formal definition
of educational technology emerged, created by experts in the field to shift the focus to include
the learning process instead of just focusing on instruction (Ibrahim, 2015). In 1970, the
definition saw other major changes when the Commission on Instructional Technology
broadened it to include methods and techniques to teach specific objectives through more
effective instruction (Seels & Richey, 1994). It was further developed a few years later in 1972
when the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) refined it to
include instructional resources being used and developed in systematized ways (AECT, 1972;
Seels & Richey, 1994), and then again in 1977 when the AECT defined it to include this
important statement:
Educational technology is a complex, integrated process involving people, procedures,
ideas, devices and organization for analyzing problems and devising, implementing,
evaluating and managing solutions to those problems involved in all aspects of human
learning. (AECT, 1977, p. 1)
The 1990s saw major shifts in the definition of educational technologies, affected by the
growth of technologies such as the internet, interactive videos, and new learning strategies and
educational theories. Reiser and Dempsey (2012) argued that educational learning theories began
to influence the design of technology usage, which brought about the shift in terms from
“educational technology” to “instructional technology.” Heinich et al. (1993) defined educational
3
technology at the time as exploring teaching and learning through the application of scientific
knowledge about learning. The 1994 definition by the AECT noted the definition of instructional
technology as “the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and
evaluation of processes and resources for learning” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p.9). This remained
the key definition, with a focus on theory and practice, until the AECT again refined it in 2008
with a switch back to the term educational technology, and the definition:
Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and
improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological
processes and resources. (Richey, 2008, p. 24)
Of note in this new definition is the separation of technological processes from resources
as well as the introduction of ethical practices. The 2008 definition set forth is still the most
widely used and referenced definition to date. As noted by the change in terms over the decades,
it is still open to interpretation and refinement by professionals in the field, as the fields of both
technology and education continue to change. For this study, educational technology will be
defined according to the 2008 AECT definition outlined above.
While educational technology is now widely integrated into schools across the United
States, it is, by most accounts, used to replace traditional teaching and not to improve or deliver
innovative teaching and learning practices (Penuel, 2006). Kirkwood and Price (2014), who
explored a framework for understanding educational technology integration, noted that enhanced
learning with the use of technology must include significant alterations in how teaching and
learning happen, and not merely be a digital replication or substitution of existing teaching and
learning (Kirkwood & Price, 2014). Teachers integrate technology into the classroom for a
variety of purposes, including promoting student engagement, teaching 21st-century skills,
4
having hands-on interactive learning, varying instructional methods, conducting research, and
communicating (Kirkwood & Price, 2014). Although technology is available and the need for
effective integration is well established, Spector (2010) argued that technology has yet to be
effectively utilized in school to achieve the potential gains in learning and instruction. Further,
Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) suggested that while there is an abundance of technology
available in schools, and most agree on its potential value, it is not being used in the most
valuable and productive ways. Shapley et al. (2010) found that even at advantaged schools,
meaningful and effective technology integration is uncommon.
With such promised potential, educational technology integration has been widely
studied, which is in itself one of the barriers to effective technology integration; there is no
agreement among national or local educational organizations about the most effective best
practices. Various factors can influence integration effectiveness, and training and knowledge are
two that have been shown to have large effects. Williams et al. (2000) found that lack of teacher
skills and lack of knowledge surrounding current tools inhibit the use of educational
technologies. Kopcha (2012) found that teachers’ lack of sustained professional development
was a large barrier to adopting educational technology. A recent group of researchers framed
barriers to effective integration as external or internal to the teacher; external barriers include
training and support, while internal barriers include beliefs and perceived value to teaching and
learning (Ertmer et al., 2012). They argue that while both pose a challenge to effective
integration, internal barriers are much more difficult to address and change, leading to more
long-term sustained problematic approaches to technology adoption and integration (Ertmer et
al., 2012).
5
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The Burke-Litwin model was utilized for this study. The Burke-Litwin model allows for
the categorization and study of an organization’s individual components and how they relate to
each other during change. Further, it allows for an enhanced understanding of the
interconnectedness of organizational problems and can provide appropriate change strategies
related to integration best practices (Burke, 1994). According to Burke and Litwin (1992),
change models should guide diagnosing, planning, and managing change. This model deals with
organizational conditions and performance and predicts behavior and consequences (Burke &
Litwin, 1992).
This study utilized a qualitative research design. According to Creswell (2014), this
means there is an emphasis on exploring, understanding, and drawing meaning from participants
based on the context and their experiences. Interviewees were seven technology integration
specialists working with K–12 schools full-time for at least a year. As experts in the field, this
target group of participants provided information regarding effective integration.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to interview technology integration specialists to assess
factors that influence effective technology integration strategies in K–12 schools to uncover
potential best practices for technology integration in K–12 schools in the United States. The
following research questions guided this study:
1. What factors in the external environment influence effective technology integration in K–
12 schools?
2. What transformational factors, including leadership, mission and strategy, and
organizational culture, influence effective technology integration in K–12 schools?
6
3. What transactional factors, including structure, management practices, and systems,
influence effective technology integration in K–12 schools?
Importance of the Study
Technology integration can support student learning in ways previously not possible,
having transformative impacts on learning and teaching (Hilton, 2016). In a recent study
surveying public schools across all states, Gray et al. (2010) found that about 97% of classrooms
have access to at least one computer with internet access every day, and the majority also have
access to other forms of technology such as interactive displays or projection systems. In 2017,
nearly 10 billion dollars were invested in private educational technology products (Escueta &
Holloway, 2019), and generally, districts across the United States spend about a combined $8.4
billion on educational technology software a year in K–12 education (Davis, 2019). Although
disparities in access to technology still exist, the vast majority of students in the United States
can access the internet from home or school, and schools are investing in new technologies for
the classrooms, especially due to COVID-19. As a result, most students have access to vast
amounts of information and resources, and most schools have access to technology (Delgado et
al., 2015).
Effective technology implementation can support student learning in more enriching
ways, such as allowing access to additional resources and information and leveling the playing
field to providing equitable access for students (Ertmer et al., 2012). A recent study found that
educational technologies, in specific conditions, can be especially beneficial for English
language learning classrooms in that they can offer additional ways to build community and meet
students’ individual needs (Anglin, 2017). Dolan et al. (2005) found that children with dyslexia
can improve their performance on tests if provided with computer-based read-aloud support. A
7
study by Gulek and Demirtas (2005) found that students are more engaged and produce work
that is of greater length and quality when educators incorporate computers into the learning
process during writing fundamentals. There is a role for effective technology integration in
administrative learning processes in addition to teaching learning processes (Gülbahar, 2007).
Effective integration and adoption for administrative activities could allow school leaders to
access new ideas, information, and resources to support teaching and learning, leading to more
innovative approaches to school structure and management (Gülbahar, 2007). Thus, educational
technology can improve student and organizational performance in specific conditions.
Ineffective implementation can lead to wasted resources, inappropriate usage of devices,
poor data collection and application, decreased or stagnant student academic growth, and teacher
frustration and burn-out (Crompton & Keane, 2012; Topper & Lancaster, 2013). Vigdor and
Ladd (2010) noted that ineffective technology integration could widen the achievement gap.
Cuban et al. (2001) found that even in classrooms with abundant technological resources,
teacher-centered instruction without technological innovation was the norm, likely due to
teachers’ training, school structures, and time. Further, Oliver (2013) indicated that the dearth of
research in this area has led to weak connections and explanations between educational
technology use and improved learning. The results of this study can have a broad impact on how
schools and technology specialists who work with schools approach technology integration.
Further, it may influence teacher development, training, and education programs whose
curriculum includes educational technology instruction.
8
Definitions
Educational technology, just like the broader category itself, adapts and changes
frequently due to both educational and technological advancements. Due to this, it is important to
define terms as they will be used in this paper and explore historical contexts.
• Digital Learning: Digital learning refers to “any instructional practice that effectively
uses technology to strengthen a student’s learning experience and encompasses a wide
spectrum of tools and practices” (ESSA, 2015, p. 1969). This includes digital learning
resources, environments, content, tools, and access. References to educational
technology, also referred to as instructional technology, will be clarified by the program,
devices, resources, tools, or strategies used in the classrooms.
• Technology Literacy: Hansen (2003) defined technology literacy as “an individual’s
abilities to adopt, adapt, invent, and evaluate technology to positively affect his or her
life, community, and environment” (p. 117).
• Effective Integration: Effective integration, used synonymously with meaningful
integration, will broadly be defined as using technology as a student-centered learning
tool to improve real-world skills and accomplish intended learning outcomes (Davies &
West, 2014; Ramorola, 2013).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters to provide a comprehensive overview of the
problem; a discussion of the external, transformational, transactional and individual factors that
influence technology integration; and recommended next steps. Chapter One offers background
on the problem, describes the importance of effective integration, and details the framework and
key terminology used. Chapter Two provides a review of the related literature and historical
9
context of the problem. Topics include discussions on barriers to effective integration, as well as
integration best practices. Chapter Three covers the methodology, data collection, and analysis.
Chapter Four describes the findings. Chapter Five concludes with organizational
recommendations based on the findings and related literature.
10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the possible barriers to effective technology integration
in schools as well as root causes of ineffective integration practices. The review begins broadly
with historical and contextual background research on the development of technology integration
in K–12 schools in the United States. Next, research regarding the importance of the effective
use of technology in K–12 schools will be discussed, including what effective integration has
come to mean in various contexts. Specifically, the review of research will highlight current best
practices and successful strategies and approaches to implementation. This is followed by a
review of the literature regarding integration challenges, failures, and barriers at various
organizational levels. Finally, the Burke-Litwin model (1992) will guide an exploration of
external, transformational, transactional, and individual factors influencing technology
integration, followed by the discussion of a conceptual framework.
History of Technology in Schools
The growing demand to utilize technology in all aspects of life has led to the steadily and
rapidly developing field of educational technology. Starting in the 1920s, educators had access to
film and radios in the classroom, and the 1980s and 1990s saw the introduction of computers
following the technological boom that accompanied the rise of the internet (Cuban, 1993). The
landmark 1983 report A Nation at Risk publicly highlighted the failures of the U.S. educational
system and is often considered a catalyst for the widespread introduction of technology into US
schools (United States National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Stating that
American schools were failing, the report led many critics to see technology as a revolutionary
tool to bring about technological educational reforms (Means, 1993). Following this, the
11
Computer Contribution Act of 1983 incentivized the donation of technology equipment into
schools by providing tax incentives (United States Congress, 1983).
While the first major wave of educational technology into schools focused on adding
computers to classrooms to support administrative tasks, by the early 1980s, there had been a
shift towards student-centered computer usage, and the student to computer ratio in U.S. public
schools was 92:1 (Cuban et al., 2001). As of January 1983, computers were being used for
educational purposes in more than 40% of all elementary schools and more than 75% of all high
schools in the United States (Center for Social Organization of Schools, 1983). In 1984,
Seymour Papert, world-renowned learning theorist and educational-technology researcher, stated
that computers were going to be “a catalyst of very deep and radical change in the educational
system” (p. 422) and predicted that each student would eventually have access to a device for
schooling. By 1990, there was one instructional computer for every 20 students, and by 1998,
there was more than one instructional computer for every six students (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002).
A committee dedicated to technology integration into schools tied to $2 billion in funds,
created by President Clinton in 1997, was the start of many governmental initiatives tied to
funding to provide schools with access to technology (Introduction, 2003). With the creation of
the “E-rate” program, part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, President Clinton allowed
the government to subsidize internet access in U.S. classrooms and provided up to $2.25 billion
per year of subsidies to schools. These subsidies contributed to the ratio of computers to schools
moving from 125:1 in 1981 to 5:1 in 2000 (Cuban, 2002). In 1999-2000, over $6 billion was
spent on technology in K–12 schools in the US with the hopes of creating changes and
improvements in teaching and learning (Sivin-Kachala & Bialo, 2000). It is estimated that in
12
1995, educational technology spending was $75 per student, and by 1999, had increased to $119
per student (Cuban, 2002). While early funding was largely from governmental initiatives,
businesses soon realized the opportunities and available markets; partnerships between schools
and corporations that involve technology soon became widespread across the US (Technavio,
2016). One key example of this is the $1.5 million partnership between Apple and The New
York State Department of Education in 1990, which saw Apple providing hardware, software,
and support to public schools in New York to enhance the quality of education and learning
opportunities (Stoll, 1991). In 1997, the Los Angeles County Office of Education partnered with
AT&T, Microsoft, and other corporations in a multi-million dollar initiative to improve
educational technology access and use, which included providing software, hardware, and
resources to public schools in the area (T.H.E. Journal, 1997). Currently, some of the largest and
most influential technology companies, such as Apple, Google, and Microsoft, have financial
and/or philanthropic partnerships with schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
Since then, schools have been adopting technology with the hopes of improving
educational and administrative processes and outcomes, and increasing access to technology in
schools has become a national priority (Cuban et al., 2001). In 2001, to improve student
academic achievement, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 mandated that K–
12 schools focus on technology integration in all areas (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). By
2005, a study by Hitlin and Rainie (2005) found that 87% of students in Grades 6–12 used the
internet regularly, 78% used the internet at school, and most of the students believed the internet
helped them do better in school. The Common Core State Standards, which focused on critical
thinking skills and college/career readiness, were introduced in 2009 in U.S. K–12 schools. The
13
adoption of these standards brought the incorporation of more technology tools and resources
into the curriculum to support adherence to these standards.
According to Bakia et al. (2007), the integration of technology into schools has been a
priority for all levels of government, resulting in significant investments. Further, enhancing
education through technology use is a part of the No Child Left Behind Act, a federal mandate
(Bakia et al., 2007). This was later reinforced by the National Education Technology Plan, which
pushed leaders at all levels to develop plans to integrate technology into the classrooms (Office
of Educational Technology, 2010). In 2009, California became the first state to formally name
and adopt 10 electronic textbooks that met academic standards for science and math (Chea,
2009). In 2010, a survey conducted in public schools across the nation showed that 97% of
teachers had access to at least one computer in the classroom daily (Gray et al., 2010). By 2012,
the ratio of students to computers with internet access in classrooms was 3:1 (Snyder & Dillow,
2012).
The last decade has seen a significant increase in the availability of technology in
schools, with an emphasis on mobile technology as well as specific digital skills. In 2019, across
the country, 87% of teachers said they used digital learning in their classrooms several times a
week (State of the States, 2019). According to a report published by Common Sense Media in
2019, 43% of teachers reported that their students each have an individual device to use while at
school, and these are typically mobile devices (Vega & Robb, 2019). Further, 75% of K–12
teachers used three or more types of digital tools with students in their classrooms, and video
streaming services were the most common type of tool (Vega & Robb, 2019). Additionally,
about 7 out of 10 K–12 teachers have taught students digital citizenship (Vega & Robb, 2019).
The data from educational technology spending in the last year due to COVID-19 was still being
14
collected at the time of this study, but it was estimated that school districts across the country
increased spending on mobile devices and educational technology supports for students and
families.
Technology Integration Impacts on Student Outcomes
Most federal mandates aimed at increasing integration in schools are premised on the
belief that digital literacy is a critical skill for success and that learning can be improved through
technology use (Office of Educational Technology, 2010). Studies have found that technology
integration can increase student motivation, communication, and access to information (Bebell &
Kay, 2010). In 1994, an analysis of over 500 different studies found that technology focusing on
individualizing instruction improved student’s attitudes towards learning (Kulik, 1994). Another
analysis of research published between 1993 and 2000 found that the effective integration of
educational technology in grades Pre-K to 3 and 6 to 8 can positively impact student outcomes in
reading and math (Murphy et al., 2002). Similarly, Wenglinsky (1998) found that when
implemented appropriately, technology can have a positive impact on math achievement in
Grades 4 and 8. Further, Odden et al. (2003) noted that effectively integrating technology into
instruction can positively impact student test scores, similar to reducing class size in primary
grades.
The influence of technology in education is unavoidable and necessary (Fiske &
Hammond, 1997); however, technology adoption and integration are two separate processes.
Many schools have adopted technologies, placed them in classrooms, and even integrated them
into routines; however, according to Newhouse and Clarkson (2008), integrating technology to
affect meaningful change is in and of itself a complex process of educational change. Further, the
15
amount of technology a school has alone does not correlate to improvements in student learning
(Lei & Zhao, 2007).
Recent studies have begun to focus on the alignment between technology integration and
pedagogical methods. Harasim (2012) noted that in order for technology to be used appropriately
in the classroom to advance the learning process, educators need to build their pedagogical
practices and knowledge. The most frequently documented uses of classroom technology have
only resulted in minor changes in teaching styles and do not align with best pedagogical
practices in the field (Dexter et al., 1999); they tend to be teacher-centered activities focused on
low-level skill repetition versus student-centered practices in line with constructivism (Becker &
Riel, 1999). Effective integration will broadly be defined as using technology as a student-
centered learning tool to improve real-world skills and accomplish intended learning outcomes
(Davies & West, 2014; Ramorola, 2013).
Effective Integration Best Practices
One major issue in the field of educational technology is that there is no clear consensus
on what success or effectiveness entails, or is evidenced by, which makes comparing practices
difficult. Jacobson et al. (2019) noted that personal priorities or philosophies might influence
effectiveness in educational settings with a large and diverse group of stakeholders. While the
measure of effectiveness may vary by setting and goals, and there is no consensus, research has
started to explore effective integration best practices within certain conditions or with specific
groups. There are generally two researched realms of factors that influence integration, known as
internal and external. Examples of external factors are federal and state mandates and resource-
related issues like access to resources or funding. Examples of internal factors could include
culture, professional development, pedagogical choices, teacher self-efficacy, school culture, and
16
motivation (Keengwe et al., 2008). As both the external and internal factors merge with the
external, transformational, transactional, and individual components of the Burke-Litwin model,
both will be discussed.
External factors affecting educational technology implementation are often large in scope
and outside the control of the organization. For example, the year 2020 saw a global pandemic
greatly influence how schools use technology, with schools all over the world having to shift to
remote learning (Bond, 2020). In some cases, this shift happened in a matter of hours (Bond,
2020). In 2003, the Texas legislature created the Technology Immersion Project (TIP) to
immerse schools in technology by providing a mobile device for every student and teacher in
specific districts as well as additional resources and mandates for training and use (Shapley et al.,
2008). This state project imposed specific rules and guidelines for the use of technology within
schools over 3 years and saw the increase in students’ technology skills, increased interactions
with peers, and a slight advantage in state tests but a decrease in attendance compared to the
control group (Shapley et al., 2008). In 2002, Michigan implemented the Freedom to Learn
initiative, which provided one-to-one devices for students to use at school and home to
specifically support inquiry-based learning (Ross, 2020). The pilot results were that the
implementation group performed better on statewide writing assessments than the control group
(Ross, 2020).
Moving towards internal organizational factors that affect technology implementation,
studies have begun to explore the role of the organizational vision, framework, and culture.
Kearney et al. (2018) argue that educators make integration decisions within their school’s
technology vision and mission based on a variety of factors. Tondeur et al. (2013) found that a
shared school vision, as it relates to technology, is critical to technology implementation
17
programs’ success. Mecklenburger (1989) stated that school administrators must be
knowledgeable and effective users of technology, understanding its capabilities and limits, to be
able to effectively plan, support, maintain, and create successful technology implementation
systems and structures. Windschitl and Sahl (2002) found that the culture of the organization
largely impacted teachers’ technology implementation success, which Zhao et al. (2002)
interpreted to mean that innovative technology approaches will not be adopted if they do not
align with the core beliefs and practices of the school. Consequently, without a supportive
administration, educational technologies risk reinforcing ineffective existing beliefs and practices
(Marshall, 2010).
Another important internal aspect to consider is that pedagogy practices and
technological integration are interwoven, as briefly discussed earlier. A basic tenet of education
is that learning comes from remembering, understanding, and applying information (Perkins,
1992). Mayer (1984) builds on that tenet by attributing meaningful learning to the cognitive
process involved with information selection, organization, and integration. Technology
integration is meaningful when it can facilitate a deeper processing of the cognitive tasks
involved with learning. Savenye et al. (1991) built on this by concluding that effective
technology integration relies more on the teacher’s ability to implement lessons based on sound
pedagogical principles rather than on the technology itself. Dede (1995) suggested that having
students construct their own learning and knowledge through technology use will shift the
teacher from being the primary source of knowledge and diffuse the responsibility of learning.
Consequently, technology will be more effective if its integration is tied to effective evidence-
based teaching principles (Hooper & Rieber, 1995).
18
The teacher’s beliefs and abilities are two internal factors that can have an impact on
effective integration. Many studies have found that increasing positive teacher attitudes is a
critical step towards increasing effective and meaningful technology integration (Palak & Walls,
2009). Trinidad et al. (2004) developed a technology integration framework to assess a teacher’s
progress towards effectively integrating technology into the classroom, moving from emerging,
applying, and integrating to transforming. Other frameworks exist, but many have similar
indicators such as entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, or invention (Cuban, 2002). Cuban
(2002) found that teachers assessed to be in the transforming or invention spectrum of the
framework exhibit characteristics such as innovation, flexibility, and motivation. They use
multiple teaching strategies, are committed to professional development, and believe in the
opportunities technology resources can provide. According to Keengwe et al. (2008), educators
need to feel confident in their ability to use technology consistently for instructional activities in
order for true integration to occur. Senjov-Makohon (2006) found that teachers who invest in
interacting with technology in new and creative ways are more likely to use technology
collaboratively and to solve problems. Hughes (2005) found that when teachers have a strong
understanding of how technology can affect learning and performance, they are more likely to
use technology in innovative and transformative ways. In summary, the specific educator
employing the technology plays a critical role in effective integration.
There is also a role for self-efficacy and social cognitive theory in technology
implementation. Guskey (1986) claimed that supporting teachers’ successful practices will lead
to a change in associated beliefs. Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy theory also supports the idea
that before attempting larger changes, building a teacher’s confidence through positive small-
scale experiences and instructional changes would be more effective. Zhao and Cziko (2001)
19
relate this to technology implementation by pointing out that many teachers adopt technology
without changing their pedagogy because lower-level goals are easier to reach; if they were
forced to change their pedagogy to support new technologies, they might resist adopting it
altogether. Thus, best practices indicate supporting teachers with smaller technological goals
initially, coupled with reflecting on beliefs and providing opportunities to practice activities
supported by different beliefs, can help develop effective integration practices (Ertmer, 2005).
Hughes (2005) also found a connection between a teacher’s experience level and their
ability to support the use of meaningful technology. Technical knowledge, as a component of
teacher knowledge, began to emerge in the early 2000s after classroom teachers’ integration
practices began to be associated and examined alongside effective technology integration
(Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2002). This is tied to the conceptual framework developed by Koehler
and Mishra (2009) that connects the concepts of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge,
technological knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, technological content knowledge,
technological pedagogical knowledge, and technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK). Harris et al. (2009) claimed that when teachers do not use or do not possess TPACK,
they are more likely to use technology in basic and ineffective ways. Polly et al. (2010)
supported this with the claim that meaningful integration is only possible when teachers fuse
knowledge about technology with pedagogy and content. In the last decade, over 100
instruments have been created to assess the seven types of TPACK knowledge, and it has been
widely referenced and recognized as a valuable tool for supporting teachers in measuring
effective integration readiness (Archambault & Barnett, 2010).
20
Integration Challenges
Many technology integration efforts have focused on acquiring access to technology and
increasing the frequency of use in the classroom versus focusing on how it is being used.
According to Davies and West (2014), many integration frameworks assume that using
technology in itself is beneficial and effective. However, there is no direct correlation between
having access to technology and using it effectively or increased access to technology leading to
increased academic success (Davies & West, 2014). Kent and McNergney (1999) found that
access to the best technologies alone will not bring about any beneficial changes in education.
According to Shapley et al. (2010), effective technology integration is not common even in
schools with abundant technologies available. Penuel (2006) noted that increased access to
educational technology in classrooms did not change instruction in meaningful ways. In the
previously cited study by Gray et al. (2010) showing that 97% of teachers had access to a
computer daily, 60% of those same teachers noted that they did not often use computers during
instructional time.
Professional development has been a large focus of effective integration practices.
However, Choy et al. (2009) wrote that even with appropriate training, educators will not always
use technology effectively. Positive beliefs towards educational technology do not necessarily
lead to effective usage (Woolfe, 2010). Students often use classroom technology for internet
searches or completing tasks (Bebell & Kay, 2010), and educators most often use it for
administrative purposes and personal productivity (Shapley et al., 2010). Cuban (2002) stated
that technology is commonly used in the classroom to supplement traditional pedagogy. Another
barrier to effective integration connected to professional development is rooted in the differences
between knowing what and knowing how. While TPACK can support effective integration,
21
critics have cited a difference between understanding all the knowledge domains and being able
to apply them in practice; even if teachers have TPACK, they may not be able to use that
knowledge to make positive changes (Law, 2008). Ertmer et al. (2001) confirmed similar
findings by reporting that teachers’ plans for technology integration did not always match
practices due to pressure from administration or parents, curricular requirements, and time
demands.
Burke-Litwin Framework
The Burke-Litwin model of organizational performance and change was utilized as the
theoretical framework of the study since, according to Burke and Litwin (1992), change models
should guide diagnosing, planning, and managing change. This model deals with organizational
conditions and performance as well as predicts behavior and consequences (Burke & Litwin,
1992). This model allows for the exploration of casual relationships among external,
transformational, transactional, and individual factors affecting technology implementation and
was chosen because it demonstrates how organizations function and how they can change due to
the relationship between these factors. The model (Figure 1) uses a feedback loop approach in
that organizational performance affects the system’s external environment, and the
organization’s performance may be affected by the external environment (Burke & Litwin,
1992). Changes to the top half of the model are largely labeled as transformational and would be
large and sweeping. In the bottom half of the model are transactional factors likely to bring about
more incremental change (Burke & Litwin, 1992). While the study was informed by the
complete model, a focus on the factors and their respective components in the top half of the
model allowed for a richer analysis of areas that can affect larger changes within an organization.
For this study, an in-depth analysis of the external, transformational, and transactional factors,
22
including the external environment, leadership, mission and strategy, organizational culture,
structure, management practices, and systems (policies and procedures) components, allowed for
a deeper exploration and understanding of the external, strategic and operating organizational
factors affecting technology integration.
Figure 1
Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
Note. From “A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change.” By W. Burke & G.
Litwin, 1992, Journal of Management, 18, pp. 523–545.
(https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306)
23
The Burke Litwin model, which has not previously been used to examine technology
integration specifically, is appropriate for the scope of this study due to the interwoven
organization factors influencing technology integration within a school. As stated throughout the
literature, technology integration might be affected by external factors like funding and
workforce demands, transformational factors like culture and leadership, transactional factors
like structure and systems, and individual factors like self-efficacy and professional
development. Since technology implementation is threaded throughout an entire organization,
elements of change are required in both transactional and transformational levels to affect change
in the organization overall. The Burke Litwin framework serves as an appropriate framework to
assess current practices and propose desired outcomes to lead schools to change technology
implementation practices positively.
There are 12 organizational components within the model, categorized as external,
transformational, transactional, or individual factors. The components and their definitions are
listed below. Table 1 correlates the Burke Litwin factors to how they are connected to
technology integration, as explored through topics included in the interviews with specialists.
• External environment (external): Any outside condition or situation that influences the
organization’s performance (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 531).
• Mission and strategy (transformational): What the organization’s (a) top management
belief is and has declared the organization’s mission and strategy and (b) what employees
believe is the central purpose of the organization (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 531).
• Leadership (transformational): Executives providing overall organizational direction and
serving as behavioral role models for all employees (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 532).
24
• Culture (transformational): The collection of overt and covert rules, values, and
principles that are enduring and guide organizational behavior (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p.
532).
• Structure (transactional): The arrangement of functions and people into specific areas
and levels of responsibility, decision-making authority, communication, and relationships
to assure effective implementation of the organization’s mission and strategy (Burke &
Litwin, 1992, p. 532).
• Management practices (transactional): What managers do in the normal course of events
to use the human and material resources at their disposal to carry out the organization’s
strategy (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 532).
• Systems (Policies and procedures) (transactional): Standardized policies and
mechanisms that facilitate work, primarily manifested in the organization’s reward
systems, management information systems (MIS), and in such control systems as
performance appraisal, goal and budget development, and human resource allocation
(Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 532).
• Work climate (transactional): The collective current impressions, expectations, and
feelings that members of local work units have that, in turn, affect their relations with
their boss, with one another, and with other units (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 532).
• Task requirements and individual skills: (individual): The required behavior of task
effectiveness, including specific skills and knowledge required of people to accomplish
the work for which they have been assigned and for which they feel directly responsible
(Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 533).
25
• Individual needs and values (individual): The specific psychological factors that provide
desire and worth for individual actions or thoughts (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 533).
• Motivation (Individual): Aroused behavior tendencies to move toward goals, take needed
action, and persist until satisfaction is attained. This is the net resultant motivation; that
is, the resultant net energy generated by the sum of achievement, power, affection,
discovery, and other important human motives (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 533).
• Individual and organizational performance (transactional): The outcome or result as
well as the indicator of effort and achievement (Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 533).
Table 1
Burke-Litwin Factors and Educational Technology Integration Examples
Burke-Litwin
factor
Burke-Litwin
component
Educational technology integration example
External Environment State and local laws regarding technology
access and implementation.
Transformational Mission and
strategy
How the school’s technology vision integrates
with the organization’s overall mission and
vision, how the technology vision is
communicated to staff, or how technology
integration fits into strategic planning for the
organization.
Leadership Leadership is familiar and capable with the
technology being used in classrooms.
Leadership supports technology integration
policies and practices.
Culture Organizational attitudes, resources, and
support towards technology integration.
26
Burke-Litwin
factor
Burke-Litwin
component
Educational technology integration example
Transactional Structure Hiring outside consultants to provide
implementation support.
Management
practices
Teacher evaluations using technology
integration rubrics.
Systems (Policies
and procedures)
Staff evaluations and training based on
technology implementation.
Work climate Peer-to-peer personalized learning networks
in regards to technology implementation.
Individual Task requirements
and individual
skills
Technology training and evaluation, self-
efficacy reflection and development.
Individual needs
and values
Technology training and evaluation.
Motivation Technology training and evaluation.
The data collected from interviews with educational technology consultants were
interpreted using the Burke-Litwin model to provide appropriate change strategies to improve
effective integration strategies.
Summary
Chapter Two reviewed the history of technology integration in education as well as
integration best practices and barriers to effective integration. Different strategies such as teacher
evaluations using a TPACK framework, improving teacher beliefs about technology integration,
and connections to pedagogical practices, were explored. The last section of Chapter Two was
the development of a framework for interpreting data collected from interviews, which allowed
27
for an exploration of the connection between different organizational factors that can lead to
changes in integration practices. Chapter Three will present the study’s methodological
framework used to explore the connection between these organizational factors and effective
technology integration.
28
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Three presents the overall research design and the methods for data collection
and analysis that were used to explore the three research questions that guided this study:
1. What factors in the external environment influence effective technology integration in K–
12 schools?
2. What transformational factors, including leadership, mission and strategy, and
organizational culture, influence effective technology integration in K–12 schools?
3. What transactional factors, including structure, management practices, and systems,
influence effective technology integration in K–12 schools?
This is a qualitative study utilizing Burke and Litwin’s (1994) framework for identifying
organizational factors involved in effective integration. This chapter will first explain the choice
of the stakeholder group for the study and outline the sampling and recruitment strategies. There
is then a description of the data collection methodology, a discussion of the strategy for
developing and implementing each measurement instrument, and an overview of the data
analysis techniques employed to process the data. What follows is a discussion of the credibility
and trustworthiness of the qualitative data. The chapter concludes with a reflection on ethics.
Participating Stakeholders: Criteria and Rationale
Qualitative data were collected to assess factors influencing technology integration, as
determined by a group of specialists trained to integrate technology into schools. The stakeholder
group for this study consisted of technology integration specialists working with K–12 schools,
both public and non-public. Eight purposeful interviews were conducted with these stakeholders.
This target group of participants provided information regarding meaningful integration as
experts in the field and have experience working with schools to build, fix, or enhance
29
technology integration practices. While most participants work full time as technology
integration specialists for their primary school, all identified as consultants, as they serve in
supporting consulting roles for other schools or their professional networks.
Participants were selected using purposeful selection and recruited through contacts in
my professional network. Selecting a niche population of technology integration specialists is
deliberate, as working with a niche group of participants allows them to provide specific and
relevant information regarding the research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Convenience and
snowball sampling, which are non-probability and purposeful sampling techniques, entail
selecting participants from the population based on accessibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
was the most effective form of participant selection for this study as the group of participants
came from a relatively rare and specialized group where feasibility of access was a concern, and
participants were all from connected networks (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Pazzaglia et al., 2016).
The following sampling criteria were used to select participants for the interviews. The rationale
is provided in the following section.
Criterion 1
The first criterion was that the educational technology specialists working in K–12
schools had a formal academic background in educational technology. This indicates that the
individual evaluates educational technology programs within schools and has the appropriate
background knowledge to identify best practices.
Criterion 2
The second criterion was that participants identified as serving in a consultant role in
professional circles. This indicates that participants are connected and current on best practices in
the field.
30
Data Collection and Analysis
This study used semi-structured open-ended interviews to collect data since interviews
provide detailed, in-depth, and information-rich cases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview
questions (see Appendix A) were designed to take between 45 and 60 minutes and target the
external, transformational, transactional, and individual factors within the Burke-Litwin model
influencing effective technology integration.
Interview Protocol and Procedures
The use of a semi-structured interview protocol allowed me to clarify and ask follow-up
questions of participants, which allowed participants and me greater freedom to explore related
topics connecting to effective integration as well as share additional knowledge and insights
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, semi-structured open-ended interview questions ensured
consistency across interviews; allowed for collecting enough data to compare and draw
conclusions; and provided information about participants’ thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, and
reasoning regarding factors influencing technology integration (Johnson & Christensen, 2019).
The majority of the interview questions are opinions and value questions along with sensory
questions, meaning they aimed at understanding the specialists’ cognitive and interpretive
process as well as what they see working and not working in the schools (Patton, 2002). There
are also a handful of experience and behavior questions aimed at gathering data about the
specialists’ actions in the schools as they relate to changes and decisions regarding
implementation plans (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Many of the interview questions could be
considered “presupposition questions” in that they have assumed shared knowledge; however,
this is appropriate given the specialized nature of the participant pool. They are all considered
experts in the educational technology field (Patton, 2002).
31
The interview protocol began with introductions and greetings, followed by a review of
the goal of the interview and time frame. Before beginning, I confirmed verbal consent from
participants and assured them of privacy and security (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The 15 open-
ended questions that followed aimed to explore the external, transformational, transactional, and
individual factors that affect technology integration in the specific schools they have worked
with, as well as aimed to evaluate how participants perceived, created, acted, and reacted to
integration barriers and successes when working with schools, within the conceptual framework.
Given the COVID-19 global pandemic that occurred in 2020 and 2021, the interviews
were conducted virtually via Zoom to minimize risk and disruption to the participants (Patton,
2015; Weiss, 1994). They were recorded using the feature on Zoom that captures video, audio,
and audio transcripts, and I took additional notes. The audio recording ensured that accurate data
were captured for later analysis, and the additional notes allowed for the capture of thoughts and
reactions during the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002).
Data Analysis
Following the interviews, I meticulously reviewed the transcriptions to ensure their
accuracy. After ensuring accuracy and reviewing the transcripts, I used the alignment between
the interview protocol and the Burke-Litwin framework to develop and apply a priori codes
using the program ATLAS.ti, which explored the external, transformation, transactional, and
individual factors affecting technology integration. According to Gibbs (2018), a priori coding is
constructed before coding by creating thematic lists drawn from previewing transcripts and
drawing on literature as well as previous research. Through the first round of coding using this
method, themes began to emerge from the transcripts, and it was possible to start seeing areas to
compare between the interviews. Following this, I utilized a system of open coding to explore
32
other emerging themes outside of the main factors from the framework. Once the transcripts
were coded, I explored patterns and themes relating to the research questions.
Credibility, Validity, and Trustworthiness
Credibility is an important consideration in qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). One important strategy to ensure credibility, or internal validity, of the findings from the
interviews is triangulation, which involves using different methods to check on one another
(Maxwell, 2013). For this study, triangulation of data collection was difficult since observations
in schools did not occur, and data came from interviews and the literature. Member checks, or
respondent validation, were used to ensure internal validity and credibility. By soliciting
feedback from participants on the preliminary findings, it was possible to rule out the
misinterpretation of participant responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Throughout the study, awareness of my positionality and reflexivity was important to
avoiding bias (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I am a member of the small community of which
participants are also members, and we cross paths in professional circles often. By being aware
of this positionality, I continually examined and reflected on the relationships with participants
and how that may have influenced responses (Maxwell, 2013). I employed member checks as a
reflexive tool to mitigate my potential biases or misinterpretations of responses (Maxwell, 2013).
Ethics
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), it is the responsibility of the individual
researcher to proceed in as ethical a manner as possible. For this study, my relationship with
participants and in the field was considered in regards to potential ethical dilemmas. Robinson
and Firth Leonard (2019) stated that it is important to understand the context in which questions
are administered and in which respondents will be answering. Since I am also a member of the
33
specialized community of educational technology specialists, it was made clear that my task was
to gather data, not evaluate or judge. I did not interview anyone involved in any overlapping
projects or immediate professional circles.
Before and during data collection, I provided participants information on the potential
risks and benefits of participating in the study, although the study was designed to mitigate any
risks as evidenced by the approval from the institutional review board. I removed identifying
information from transcripts and recordings and maintained confidentiality throughout (Creswell,
2014).
34
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to assess factors that influence effective technology
integration strategies in K–12 schools in order to uncover potential solutions for increasing the
technology integration success rates in K–12 schools in the United States. The Burke-Litwin
model allowed for the thorough investigation of the external, strategic, and operating
organizational factors, identified in the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter Two, that
positively and negatively impact technology integration. To answer the research questions, I
interviewed technology integration specialists. This chapter presents three main findings aligned
to the research questions, beginning with a description of the participants, and then a discussion
of the findings and results. Three research questions guided data collection:
1. What factors in the external environment influence effective technology integration in K–
12 schools?
2. What transformational factors, including leadership, mission and strategy, and
organizational culture, influence effective technology integration in K–12 schools?
3. What transactional factors, including structure, management practices, and systems,
influence effective technology integration in K–12 schools?
Participants
Eight technology integration specialists were interviewed for qualitative data; however,
the data from only seven of the participants are included. Through the interviews, I determined
that one participant did not meet selection criteria one and two, and I discarded the data. Table 2
describes the participants’ pseudonyms and school settings. The participants represented seven
different schools in four states. Two worked in public schools, and five worked in private
schools. Three worked in K–12 settings, two in secondary settings, one in middle school, and
35
one in elementary school. Participants came from different career backgrounds, and not all had a
background in education. All received formal and informal training in educational-technology-
related fields. The specialists’ perspective on teaching and pedagogy is informed by their role as
consultants and employees in the field of education, shaped by best practices in the field gleaned
through professional development and lived experiences. Pseudonyms and gender-neutral
pronouns were used to protect the confidentiality of each of the participants. Due to the small
participant group, additional information was withheld to maintain anonymity.
Table 2
Participant Data
Pseudonym School setting
Specialist 1 Public K–12
Specialist 2 Private Secondary
Specialist 3 Private K–12
Specialist 4 Private Middle
Specialist 5 Private Secondary
Specialist 6 Private K–12
Specialist 7 Public Elementary
36
Results and Findings
This section presents the interview findings in the form of three overarching findings as
they connect to the research questions, with the specific external, transformational, and
transactional factors identified throughout each finding. Table 3 summarizes the findings and
explicitly connects them to the Burke Litwin factors, and Table 4 summarizes the findings by
research question. The chapter concludes with a synthesis of the results and findings. Throughout
this and the remaining sections, educational technology integration specialists will be referred to
solely as specialists.
Table 3
Summary of Findings with Connected External, Transformational, and Transactional Factor
Influences
Main findings External, transformational, and transactional influenced findings
Finding 1: Effective
educational technology
implementation follows,
and is reliant on, effective
pedagogical practices.
These are typically student-
centered.
External: COVID-19
Specialists noted that the educators and schools that were able to
successfully pivot and sustain meaningful virtual learning when
forced to during COVID-19, were those that already utilized data
driven pedagogical techniques, such as student-centered learning
and culture of inquiry.
Transformational: Leadership
Specialists found that technology is used most effectively in the
classroom when administration not only encourages, but
supports, expects, and enforces the integration following
secondary to, and in support of, the use of effective pedagogical
practices.
Transformational: Mission and Vision
Specialists agreed that technology implementation should be
driven by pedagogical needs, and mission alignment.
Transactional: Systems (Policies and Procedures)
Specialists found that when schools have structures in place that
align technology to curricular goals, it is used more effectively.
37
Main findings External, transformational, and transactional influenced findings
Finding 2: Educational
technology initiatives
need to be aligned to the
school’s mission, vision,
and culture in order to be
effective.
• This is best
implemented
through a top-down
approach.
Transformational: Leadership
Specialists found that alignment of the mission, vision, and culture
with technology implementation is most effective when
explicitly defined and communicated by administration.
Transformational: Mission and Vision
Specialists agreed that the mission and strategy of the school, if
relevant and appropriate in supporting 21st century learners, will
include either explicit or implicit technological factors that guide
implementation efforts.
Transformational: Organizational Culture
Specialists noted that schools with a culture of risk taking support
the development of staff technological and pedagogical
competencies.
Transactional: Structure
Specialists agreed that decisions and communication regarding
technology implementation should originate with administration,
to ensure alignment.
Finding 3: The goal of
effective implementation
is for students to
understand how and when
to appropriately leverage
technology to improve or
enhance their self-
identified intended
outcomes.
External: Environment
Specialists noted that schools feel a responsibility to prepare
students to enter an increasingly digital workforce and society.
Specialists also identified parental pressure to prepare students
for careers in the technology sector, as well as for exposure to
Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics
(S.T.E.A.M) based curricula.
Transformational: Mission and Strategy
Specialists agreed that the mission of most schools is related to
preparing students to be independent, and that harnessing
technology in one’s everyday life is a critical component of that.
Transactional: Structures
Specialists noted that a system of professional development that
supports the development of the application of tools on a deeper
level, can lead to better student understandings and applications
of the tools.
38
Finding 1: Effective Educational Technology Implementation Follows, and is Reliant on,
Effective Pedagogical Practices
Specialists all referenced the importance of utilizing evidence-based pedagogical
practices in connection with integrating technology. Several specialists referenced tying
technology integration to specific pedagogical practices, such as student-centered instruction, but
all noted the importance of some pedagogical connection and the connection to curricular goals.
Regarding main drivers, interviewees noted that several external, transformation, and
transactional factors were critical to supporting a student-centered view of technology grounded
in effective pedagogy.
External: COVID-19
All seven specialists referenced the current COVID-19 global pandemic as influencing
and impacting educational technology usage in schools. The most significant area of agreement
was that the majority of schools now have an influx of educational technology tools that they
must incorporate into in-person instruction meaningfully. Specialist 1 (S1) stated that staff needs
to learn how to “leverage online learning...the skills that they gained while teaching in this
remote space or this online space, and I could see some teachers integrating some of that.”
Specialist 5 (S5) further noted,
The number of teachers using technology increased exponentially during COVID.
Teachers really wanted to find different ways to engage the kids because they realized
that they couldn’t just teach the same way they were doing just because they were
remote. So, they were looking for different tools and different ways to get the kids to
engage. It’s shifted the way they think about technology because a lot of them saw it as
an intrusion in their space, something that was taking up too much time, but now I think a
39
lot of them have bought in, and they see the value of being more creative. They see the
value of getting their kids engaged in different ways, so I do think a good number of them
are going to stay with the tools.
Specialists noted that the educators and schools who successfully pivoted and sustained
meaningful virtual learning when forced to during COVID-19 were those who already utilized
pedagogical techniques such as student-centered learning and a culture of inquiry. Specialist 3
(S3) noted that “virtual learning gave students and staff an opportunity to lean into inquiry and
student-centered learning. A lecture over Zoom just wouldn’t work. Like, we know a lecture to
the whole class just doesn’t work.” Several specialists noted that students were more likely to
attend Zoom classes during COVID-19 virtual learning when they were working on interest
projects or in groups. When schools were forced to go virtual, technology could be used more
effectively when harnessed for student-centered learning, as evidenced by the specialists’
mention of attendance, participation, and student engagement.
Transformational: Mission and Vision
According to multiple specialists, the main driver of technology adoption should be
alignment with school pedagogy and vision. S3 said that the best technology implementation
projects they have participated in have “come from a pedagogical source as opposed to an
operational source,” meaning that the projects were driven first and foremost by teaching
practices. S3 further noted,
It has to start with that. That pedagogy. It has to be coming from the spot of “we teach
this way to these standards, with these practices, and now we’re going to bring these
technological tools to bear on those practices. As an end result, we’re going to get to
these goals.” It becomes a continuum, and the goal of good professional development for
40
ed tech has to be that you’re never done. You might understand the feature set that you
need to accomplish certain pieces of your goal. But considering that the pedagogy will
remain solid. Your content matter will probably change over time, depending on how
things develop, what your topics are, what grade levels you’re teaching, but you can
always refine and get better at your practice of pedagogy.
S3 noted that the organization they work in employs evidence-based teaching practices, such as
student-centered and inquiry-based learning, which has been a successful base for adding in
technology. Specialist 7 (S7) did not specifically reference a pedagogical style, instead noting
that pedagogical best practices might be “different for every school you know, like what kind of
teaching works for the kids will vary.” However, S7 expressed similar experiences and
generalized by saying that “good teaching with technology is just good teaching. You won’t see
an ineffective teacher teach effectively with technology” and that they need a strong pedagogical
base to work from before attempting to integrate technology into their practice. Specialists’
emphasis on the development of evidence-based pedagogical practices before integrating
technology speaks to the importance of tying technology to already existing educational best
practices.
Transactional: Systems
A school’s systems connected to pedagogy, curriculum, and goals affect technology
integration’s success. Six specialists referenced the significance of aligning technology
implementation with curricular goals, which they noted happens in environments where the
expectation is that pedagogy is driven by learning goals. S5 stated that technology integration
must “really support the content and skills that they’re doing. So, it’s not just frills and some
fancy presentation, but it’s really helping the students engage better with their subject matter.”
41
Further, S5 noted that “effective integration to me is getting them thinking differently about the
material and getting them more engaged, but also to support whatever they do for the content and
skills of that subject area.” This was also echoed by Specialist 4 (S4), who said that “meaningful
use of technology is when teachers are able to understand what the tool is asking or what the tool
needs it to do, but also keeping in mind first and foremost, what standards or what learning goals
they have.” Specialist 2 (S2) further expanded on this concept by saying, “Teachers should be
building their curriculum and their lessons and then thinking about how to utilize or leverage the
technology to enhance the curriculum and lessons.” Specialists saw technology integration as a
way to enhance already existing effective pedagogical practices, to support curricular goals.
Transactional: Systems and Transformational: Leadership
When not tethered to strong pedagogical practices and curriculum, educational
technology integration will be less meaningful and more performative. This is driven by
leadership and the systems established within the school. S7 noted that “when a teacher is
struggling, that’s when you’ll see things like babysitting with computers or lots of videos not
connected to goals, just time wasters.” S3 expanded on this with a specific example from a
previous organization with no pedagogical alignment: “Students carried around laptops that at
best they might be typing notes into. But half the time, it was much more of a, I’ll call it an after-
school entertainment piece, that they had something to watch Netflix on.” S4 agreed and noted,
What I find ineffective is if the students are using the tool and they don’t really
understand, like, why they’re using it, it’s just using it for the sake of using it. It doesn’t
integrate with any learning goals or standards.
S3 best summarized the differences between educational technology integration tied to pedagogy
and curriculum, or not, by explaining that when there is alignment,
42
[There is a] completely different set of expectations, and then in my experience, a much
higher actual use [of educational technology] in the right way. As opposed to just, I’ll call
it token use, substitution straight on, you know, just doing it digitally instead of on paper
or anything else that is non-pedagogically aligned. What is pedagogically aligned?
There’s a higher-order piece that kind of kicks in because it’s no longer just about
checking off the box for the tool. It’s that tool is giving me the ability to do something
very, very different, and that makes it more meaningful and effective.
Systems that support and encourage this alignment lead to more meaningful use because students
understand the application of the tool and can use it to explore the content in more depth and
make more meaningful connections. Without this connection, technology is just being used as a
substitution without real benefit. S5 expanded on this:
I think a replication of what’s in the book doesn’t really help them [students] think any
more. Yes, they’re using technology, but how did that help them remember or have a
better understanding? That kind of thing, so I would say if it’s just frills and presentation
and looks good, bells and whistles, but it doesn’t really help the students engage or think
differently about the material, then to me, that’s bad examples of integration.
The connection for specialists between technology implementation and learning goal
alignment was clear, as was the role that leadership plays in this alignment. Specialists noted that
technology and curriculum alignment happens more naturally in environments where leadership
has created the expectation that all pedagogical decisions should revolve around the learning
goals, which should also be tied to the school’s overarching goals.
Finding 2: Educational Technology Initiatives Need to be Aligned to the Organization’s
Mission, Vision, and Culture in Order to be Effective
43
Educational technology initiatives and implementation are most effective when aligned to
the organization’s mission, vision, and culture. Specific external, transactional, and
transformational factors were found to play a role in this alignment. All seven specialists noted
administration and leadership as intertwined in the school culture and the large impact culture
can have on educational technology implementation, specifically referencing risk-taking and
support from leadership. S5 stated that a “nurturing space that fosters that way you’re thinking”
for staff can lead to productive implementation discussions and risk-taking by staff. Many of the
specialists specifically noted that a school culture that included support for a top-down approach
as it related to technology usage was typically more effective. All specialists also noted the
importance of connecting technology implementation decision making with organizational vision
and mission. S6 mentioned that when the mission is clearly defined, “we know who we are, we
know the type of students that we want to educate, so we incorporate initiatives that relate to
that.” Specialists typically agreed that this alignment led to more focused and consistent
implementation standards aligned with school culture and pedagogical approaches, with the end
goals for students in mind.
Transformational: Mission and Vision
All seven specialists noted the importance of alignment between technology
implementation and organizational vision and mission, although some also noted that it was not
common practice. Regarding the importance of alignment on implementation success, Specialist
6 (S6) noted that the technology department and technology decision makers are all “one school,
and so we are guided by the values of the school, by the vision, the mission,” which means
alignment is embedded in technology-related decisions. S7 echoed this: “The mission of the
school is supposed to drive all decisions, right? Technology falls under that for sure, or at least it
44
should. The use of technology needs to be expected to match the teaching and mission.” S2 was
more specific about ensuring alignment and ranked it as one of the most important factors:
It’s paramount. It’s key. You can’t change, or lead, or guide, or move, anyone or
anything without a common goal or understanding what that goal is. So, it always starts
with the mission because everything that you do has to have meaning for the organization
or meaning for the teacher or meaning for the student, and that starts with the mission. I
think it’s key. If one does not exist, then you need to build one first. That drives every
decision.
S4 noted that alignment with mission and vision is always their first step when implementing
new educational technologies, and when working with schools, creates a digital philosophy that
specifically connects the school’s mission and vision to the technology usage:
We actually were working on coming up with a digital philosophy with how that
connected with the mission and the vision of the school’s philosophy. So, it was all like
on the same page, and that definitely matched so that everyone was aware, okay, this is
what we believe about technology. And this is how it translates to the school’s mission.
Specialists also noted that alignment should but does not always happen. S5 reflected
that, at their organization, there is “not really a direct tie, although that alignment would be
helpful in driving it.” Specialist 1 (S1) pointed out that it can be impossible to align the
technology and the mission and vision if the school does not have one to begin with: “the reality
is a school may have a mission, but that doesn’t mean that they want to follow it or to even know
what it is. There are so many schools that have a mission and a vision just because it’s required.”
S3 noted that alignment “is missing in most K–12 implementations of technology. You’ll have
pockets of it in a school, but schools that put that vision first to me have been very, very rare.”
45
Based on reflections from specialists, aligning technology implementation and usage to a well-
developed organizational mission and vision is critical for success.
Transformational: Organizational Culture
Interviewees mentioned many aspects of organizational culture as affecting technology
implementation initiatives and usage, including regional influences, parental involvement, and
leadership structure. S6 noted that some of the technology added to their school was originally
because of how they wanted to be seen. They wanted a school culture of technology, but over
time it became “more purposeful, more consistent philosophy. So, it began as a business strategy
and then is slowly developing into a culture,” which made it more meaningful overall. S3 noted
that parental influence and involvement in shaping the school culture may affect technology
implementation and that “your technology really is in some ways skewed by where you are.”
While specialists noted regional and parental influences as affecting the school technology
culture, there was no connection between ineffective or effective usage or implementation.
All specialists noted the strong connection between culture as it relates to faculty and
technology. S1 clarified this connection:
If you’re talking about true integration of technology, then that’s a complete change in
how work is being done, and whenever large-scale change like that is happening, people
have to have the appropriate expectations. The culture has to support it.
S2 observed that “the culture that has been built at my school that enables some of that
[technology integration ideas] to generate from the faculty and not just the tech people,” and
enabling a certain culture at your school to help teachers be comfortable with integrating
technology on their own. Teachers start to build their confidence. They build their
46
knowledge, and then they start to pick the projects themselves, and you know they’re
self-enabled at that point.
Many of the specialists detailed how a culture supportive of faculty experimenting with
technology, and of it being okay to fail, led to more pedagogically aligned and collaborative
technology initiatives.
Transformational: Leadership
All seven specialists mentioned leadership and its connection to the school’s culture as
affecting implementation. The majority of specialists commented on the importance of creating a
culture of high technology implementation standards. S2 reflected:
A lot of times, schools lack leadership that are mandating certain technology initiatives,
and when you lack the mandates, it’s all about influence. Then, some battles you just say
this is not one that I’m going to engage in because it’s about influence. It’s not a directive.
But I think administration needs to say that this is what we want to have in place, let’s
make it happen, a little bit more top-down. And then if the administration does, you know,
mandate or offer up some type of directive, there needs to be the support in place, so it’s
not a matter of saying this is what we want to happen. Go make it happen to the faculty. It
has to be this is what we want to happen, and here we’re providing the tools and the
support to enable you to make it happen.
Specialists noted that leadership is responsible for creating the school’s vision and for supporting
it being carried out, which includes making the connection between the vision and technology
usage for staff and students explicitly clear.
47
Transactional: Structure
Most specialists noted the connection between organizational systems, including
management practices and structure, as affecting technology implementation. The idea of “top-
down” structures in leadership when it comes to technology implementation was further
supported by S1, who noted that “a lot of people like to criticize this idea of top-down sort of like
leadership. That’s the only time real things change.” S5 agreed and mentioned that “they
[teachers] lost opportunities because they weren’t required to use technology regularly. It wasn’t
a required thing” and that the school would have benefited from a top-down approach. Without
it, “because it wasn’t required in terms of engaging in tech, people just didn’t.” S1 also noted that
the school’s leadership is responsible for creating a culture and “environment where people feel
like they can take risks and learn something new. When people don’t feel trust or safety, then not
just technology, it’s hard to get anything done.”
More than one specialist noted that organizations need technological infrastructure
systems before any educational technology initiatives could ever be successful. S1 stated, “…
spaces are adequately equipped with the devices and the tools that are needed in order to utilize
the technology for teaching and learning. You’ve got to have your infrastructure set up so that
the technology is available in the environment.” S5 further expanded on this and connected it to
a culture of risk taking and support:
You’ve got to have all that support and infrastructure from the admin side. They
are first. If that’s not there, the teacher teachers tend to not want to go out on the limb to
test something or do something. If they feel that that support is there, they’re willing to
make the suggestions and go beyond just, well, I kind of need this, but that’s all they’re
48
willing to stretch and say, “Oh, if we had this, I could do even more. Or I could do this in
a different way.” And it creates that excitement and ownership for them as well.
Additionally, interviewees noted systems of communication and collaboration between
departments as having a positive effect on technology implementation efforts, and that, as S5
stated, “more interaction between the different departments...a lot more dialogue….we could
have done a lot of great collaborations with technology.” A few specialists noted that formal
measures of integration success or failures would be helpful but are not common practice, as
referenced by S1: “I tried to engage teachers with such tools and measures. Many of them don’t
like the structure that models, like those measuring tools, bring to the table.” This can also be
tied back to building a school culture that supports assessment tools as valuable.
Finding 3: The Goal of Effective Implementation is for Students to Understand How and
When to Appropriately Leverage Technology to Improve or Enhance their Self-Identified
Intended Outcomes
All specialists referenced an end goal of technology usage in schools, which is for
students to be able to use technology to improve their lives. This happens through learning how
to apply different technologies in different situations. Themes emerged regarding specific
external, transformational, and transactional factors that affect how and what students learn about
applying tools.
External: Environment
Most specialists noted state and national standards, parent and donor influences, societal
and cultural pressure, workforce demands, global pandemics, and financial giving as influencing
technology implementation in K–12 schools. Three specialists specifically referenced parent
influence and donations as influencing technology implementation and initiatives. However, S1
49
noted that while it may influence decisions, they would not consider it an obstacle. In fact, S1
said, “Faculty’s hesitancy to change is a larger obstacle than any other sort of third-party
influence that might come into play.” S5 said their organization had to incorporate popular topics
to appease families and draw new applicants, such as STEAM or coding opportunities. Five
specialists noted that schools must follow federal guidelines and mandates that typically affect
curriculum design overall, including what technology initiatives to include, but that they do not
have any impact, positive or negative, on how effectively the technology is integrated.
Transformational: Mission and Strategy
Interviewees identified a student-oriented end goal for technology implementation tied to
the mission and vision as a critical component for implementation success. Specialists discussed
this student-oriented goal as a driving component for technology decisions, and ultimately what
could be used as a measure of success, although the majority stated that they do not typically
specifically measure technology implementation initiatives. The most important and common
goal specialists identified is that students understand how to use what technologies in different
situations. S3 summarized this as “the goal of integration would be, I’ll call it the transparent use
of technology to achieve a learning goal without the focus being on the technology.” S7 framed
this importance in the context of workplace readiness:
Entering the workforce now, everyone has to know how to work a computer. But it’s not
even that. It’s knowing what’s going to make your life easier, what’s going to make that
project better, what’s going to just make it better, how can technology do that. That’s
what we need to teach kids.
50
While all specialists touched on the importance of this, two specifically mentioned that it is not
common, and S3 explained that it “is only at the highest levels of K–12 that people are really
integrating to that level.”
Specialists described the effective use of technology as a deeper understanding than just
the functional use of the tools, focusing on its application. S3 stated, “the most important thing is
the why, why is the tool being used and how can I use it to do these things versus just the use of
a tool to capture this information.” S3 further explained that once students are functional with a
tool, they can incorporate its use more meaningfully:
Now we can focus on what kind of information do you want us [students] to have? How
deep do you need us to go? Do we need to go more research-based, more opinion-based?
They can ask those questions, and they can get more confident. It’s “can you get your
point across and use the tools that we’ve given you?” So, in some cases, our students
have a lot of freedom of tools because we teach them a bunch, and the goal is getting the
information out of them.
S4 reiterated the importance of being able to apply tools to a variety of settings:
I believe that has come first and also, with students, they’re able to understand the tool,
but able to apply those skills to other technology tools or other projects. I believe a lot of
the tools shouldn’t just be able to do just one thing. The students should be able to
understand how it applies outside of like this one specific assignment or one specific
project.
S6 agreed and noted that technology implementation “is effective when the student understands
the purpose of the tools that you’ve given them [and] when the student clearly identifies the
51
purpose or use or power of the tools they have available.” Therefore, respondents noted that
students’ identifying the purpose of a given tool is more meaningful than the tool’s function.
Transactional: Structures
All specialists also noted the value of professional development as it relates to effective
technology implementation and the importance of that being built into the organization’s
structures. Specifically, they discussed teaching staff how to support students in applying
technology and learning tools beyond just the “how” and into more of the “why.” S5 mentioned
a success of their organization is that they have structures for staff-wide professional
development for any new tools:
You know, that’s a regular thing that we do. If there is going to be any schoolwide tool
that everybody has to use, then we’ll implement a lot of [required] training. We tend to
not, like, run random workshops with the hope that somebody’s going to come by and
take it.
Conversely, when technology professional development was not required, “I think they [staff]
lost those opportunities [to learn about meaningful use] because it wasn’t a required thing.”
Having the organization-wide professional development structure led to the expectation that staff
would learn how to use and apply the tools on a deeper level before introducing them to students.
Summary
This chapter presented the results and findings of the interviews conducted with seven
educational technology specialists, guided by the three research questions. From the
interviewees’ perspective, three overarching findings emerged. The first was that effective
educational technology implementation follows, and is reliant on, effective pedagogical practices
and is typically student-centered. The second was that educational technology initiatives need to
52
align with the school’s mission, vision, and culture to be effective. These are best implemented
through a top-down approach. The third was that the goal of effective implementation is for
students to understand how and when to appropriately leverage technology to improve or
enhance their self-identified intended outcomes. Embedded in those three findings were the
external, transformational, and transactional organizational influences. Table 4 summarizes the
findings organized by research questions.
53
Table 4
Summary of Findings Organized by Research Question
Research Question 1: What factors in the external environment influence effective technology
integration in K–12 schools?
• State and national standards
• Parent and donor requests
• Societal pressure (example: STEAM)
• Workforce demands
• Global pandemics
Research Question 2: What transformational factors, including leadership, mission and
strategy, and organizational culture, influence effective technology integration in K–12
schools?
• Effectiveness of pedagogy
• Connection to pedagogy
• Top down leadership approach
• Alignment with mission/vision of organization
• The inclusion of explicit or implicit technological factors with the mission
• Culture of inquiry
• Failure and risk taking allowed
• Freedom and choice in technological tools
Research Question 3: What transactional factors, including structure, management practices,
and systems, influence effective technology integration in K–12 schools?
• Origination of decisions and communication regarding technology implementation
54
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to interview educational technology specialists to assess
factors that influence effective technology integration strategies in K–12 schools in order to
uncover potential solutions for increasing the technology integration success rates. A qualitative
study was designed to address the following three research questions:
1. What factors in the external environment influence effective technology integration in K–
12 schools?
2. What transformational factors, including leadership, mission and strategy, and
organizational culture, influence effective technology integration in K–12 schools?
3. What transactional factors, including structure, management practices, and systems,
influence effective technology integration in K–12 schools?
Chapter Four presented three overarching findings from this study and incorporated
external, transformation, and transactional factors from the Burke-Litwin model found to
influence technology integration. This chapter discusses the findings as they relate to the Burke-
Litwin diagnostic model and current research, implications for practice (recommended solutions)
that align to the Burke-Litwin factors assessed in this study, recommendations for future
research, and a conclusion.
Discussion
As previously stated, the purpose of this study was to assess factors affecting educational
technology implementation in organizations by applying the Burke-Litwin theory as a diagnostic
framework, specifically focusing on external, transactional, and transformational factors.
Overall, the factors of focus from the Burke-Litwin framework provided key insight for
identifying organizational components that affect educational technology implementation
55
strategies, such as funding, leadership, and mission and vision alignment. The findings also
indicated that organizational culture and the connections to leadership can affect implementation
as well as other factors within the model themselves.
The three key findings that emerged from the interviews were discussed in Chapter 4.
The following sections present the main findings in relation to the involved external,
transactional, and transformational factors. One additional finding was that implementation
frameworks, formal implementation assessments, and measurement tools are not widely
incorporated. In fact, no interviewees implemented such tools. However, all specialists
acknowledged models and frameworks such as Technological, Pedagogical, and Content
Knowledge (TPACK) and Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR)
as helpful in developing and supporting teachers’ ability to integrate technology effectively. As
discussed in Chapter 2, tools like SAMR and TPACK have been examined as ways to increase
educational technology implementation’s effectiveness. These models and frameworks link the
knowledge teachers need in different realms (technical, pedagogical, and content) and explore
the complex interconnected relationship (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The connection between the
interview data and the research shows that, although there is no theoretical explanation of the
models in peer-reviewed literature, they are an under-utilized tool for potentially increasing
technology integration’s effectiveness.
Discussion of Findings Related to External Factors
All specialists stated that the COVID-19 global pandemic impacted educational
technology usage in schools and that staff had to adapt quickly to technological change, amongst
other factors. Further, many specialists noted that educational technology was more effective in
student-centered learning environments during virtual learning, as evidenced by attendance,
56
participation, and student engagement. The focus on student-centered learning is on the learner
and what they are doing and thinking, instead of the teacher (Biggs, 1990). Biggs (1990), one of
the leading researchers on student-centered learning, described it as instruction that supports
active learning through cooperative learning, critical thinking, and problem solving. Research
has found that student-centered learning can support the development of motivation and time
management as lifelong skills (Biggs, 1990). Research has also found that student-centered
learning can improve higher-order thinking, interpersonal skills, self-confidence, and the ability
to retain information (Johnson et al., 1998). A growing body of research focuses on student-
centered technology and claims that it allows greater access for students to innovate (Machado &
Chung, 2015; Feist & Reid, 2018). The research found that student-centered learning is an
effective instructional method overall. Combined with the interview data, this study found that it
can be coupled with technology effectively to provide meaningful instruction to students,
regardless of changes in the environment.
Five specialists noted that federal guidelines and mandates affect curriculum design
overall, including technology initiatives. As mentioned in Chapter 2, over the last few decades,
the U.S. Department of Education has developed federal legislation regarding technology
integration in K–12 schools, and state and local leaders are expected to develop plans to follow
suit (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). One study argued that the Common Core State
Standards influence technology integration because of the embedded technological skills like
media for presentations and research (Machado & Chung, 2015). However, the application of
this legislation varies and does not affect schools uniformly, so it is difficult to measure its direct
impact. This was reflected through the specialists’ mention of the impact of the legislation, but
they placed no real importance on incorporating it into specific plans or assessments.
57
Discussion of Findings Related to Transformational Factors
All specialists mentioned technological alignment with the school’s mission and vision as
the ideal main driver of technology adoption. This was often coupled with leadership, which will
be touched on here and discussed under transactional factors as well. Research has found that a
school’s vision can significantly impact its organizational learning (Kurland et al., 2010). The
vision for a school, in modern times, must include the integration of digital tools for learning
(Christensen et al., 2018). The most effective leaders develop a vision that is used to create a
supportive culture (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003). Machado and Chung (2015) noted that this
specifically applies to technology as well and that school leaders are responsible for being
pedagogical and technological leaders. All seven specialists mentioned leadership, in connection
to culture and vision, as affecting technology implementation. While there is a large body of
research comparing various decision-making models such as top-down, bottom-up, and
representative, research has found that technological leadership from the “top down” can directly
improve teachers’ technological literacy and integration practices (Chang, 2012). Leaders who
create a technological vision for the school, and support its implementation through modeling,
creating appropriate systems, and creating a supportive culture, are more effective (Machado &
Chung, 2015). Further, Pelgrum (1993) noted that the leaders’ attitudes towards technology can
influence teachers’ views on technology integration, and Dawson and Rakes (2003) stated that a
school principal’s own technology competency can impact teacher technology integration.
All interviewees mentioned organizational culture as affecting technology
implementation initiatives and usage. All noted the strong connection between culture and staff
members’ attitudes towards integration practices. Research has found that organizational culture
is a critical factor in determining the success of organizational change efforts (Hercleuous,
58
2001). The Burke-Litwin model incorporates organizational culture into models of
organizational change, as discussed in previous sections (Burke, 1994). Bullock (2004) noted
that a school’s culture largely affects developing teachers’ learning process in regards to
integrating technology. A supportive culture in terms of administration and staff can greatly
impact developing teachers’ use of educational technology (Bullock, 2004).
Discussion of Findings Related to Transactional Factors
Six specialists referenced the significance of aligning technology implementation with
curricular goals, which they noted happens in environments where pedagogy is expected to be
driven by learning goals. Studies have found that focusing on curriculum and learning goals
supports technology integration. Law et al. (2008) saw higher success rates when pedagogy was
the main consideration in educational technology change processes.
The majority of specialists mentioned the importance of organizational systems,
including professional development and leadership. Machado and Chung (2015) noted that
leadership creates the school systems that affect pedagogy and technology integration. One such
system is sustained professional development regarding technology implementation. Studies
have found that long-term technology professional development, which may require specific
technology integration coaching roles, can benefit staff (Machado & Chung, 2015). In
connection to the leadership points already discussed, Christensen et al. (2018) maintained that
effective school leadership incorporates a shared vision and seeks and contributes to sustained
professional development.
While the importance of professional development as it relates to technology
implementation is established, studies also highlight that teachers’ ineffective instructional use of
technology can be due to ineffective teacher professional development (Duran et al., 2012).
59
Lawless and Pellegrino (2007) stated that teacher professional development is successful when it
supports educators in adopting and integrating technology to enhance student learning.
Researchers have identified the following as characteristics of effective technology professional
development: sustained, incorporating authentic experiences situated within school contexts, and
offering various levels of support (Liao et al., 2017).
As previously mentioned, leadership structures can have a large impact on integration
efforts. Research has found that the type of leadership described above as supporting technology
integration, transformational leadership, can be applied to the change process in schools
(Leithwood et al., 2008). This applies specifically to technology integration; Tan (2010) noted
that transformational leadership can lead to higher levels of technology integration and use
within schools.
Recommendations for Practice
External Recommendations
There are a series of proposed recommendations that aim to bring about organizational
change by improving external factors affecting technology implementation. As noted in the
study, schools could adapt to environmental and external changes more effectively when they
utilized data-driven pedagogical techniques, such as student-centered learning and a culture of
inquiry. Student-centered learning, or active learning, is a method of instruction that situates the
student as the center of focus in instruction and provides interactive activities that enable
students to work at their own speed and levels and deepen their understanding of content at
multiple levels (Hannafin, 1992). Research has found that student-centered learning activities
can promote higher-order critical thinking and problem-solving skills (Savery & Duffy, 1995). It
is therefore recommended that organizations incorporate technology into data-driven
60
pedagogical techniques, such as student-centered learning and a culture of inquiry. This can be
implemented through structuring integration efforts to follow the development of student-
centered learning, specifically developing the pedagogical base and aligning to best practices
before incorporating technology that aligns.
As noted in the study, schools are increasingly responsible for preparing students to enter
a digital workforce and world. The UNESCO ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (2011)
outlines that nations need to build workforces with technological skills to problem solve, and
developing students’ capacities in this manner creates a more productive society. In 2002, the
International Society for Technology in Education published the U.S. National Educational
Technology Standards for Administrators, which called for a digital-age learning culture
(International Society for Technology in Education, 2011). It is therefore recommended that
schools’ missions and visions incorporate technological principles to support internal alignment
and external environment demands. This can be implemented through creating, or editing, the
school’s mission and vision to include relevant components from the International Society for
Technology in Education standards, which are research-based and aligned to UNESCO’s
Sustainable Development Goals (International Society for Technology in Education, 2011).
Transformational Recommendations
There are a series of proposed recommendations to bring about organizational change by
improving transformational factors found to affect technology implementation. As noted in the
study, effective pedagogical practices are foundational to any technology implementation
initiative, and technology integration and pedagogical practices should be intertwined. However,
research has noted that pedagogy and technology are often thought of and applied separately
(Bonfiglio-Pavisich, 2018). Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2010) stated that technology was
61
not being tied to pedagogy or curriculum, therefore not supporting meaningful learning. It is
recommended that organizations build knowledge of effective pedagogical practices before
implementing new technologies and tie technology integration to pedagogical practices. This can
be implemented through targeted and sustained professional development regarding pedagogical
best practices, and exemplar teacher modeling with peer observations. Further, as noted by
specialists, dedicated educational technology personnel can support this alignment.
As noted in the study, developing a culture of risk taking will support staff members’
technological and pedagogical competencies. Beghetto (2018) defined risk taking as a
willingness to try new ideas and possibilities even when there was a risk for failure and deemed
it essential in the creative learning process. Brown (2009) further touched on this point by stating
that risk-taking is part of adapting and thinking creatively, which is essential for teachers in
teaching innovatively. Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1996) stated that risk-taking is
essential for teachers’ growth, and Fullan (1995) advocated for teacher education that involved
learning how to take risks effectively. Therefore, it is recommended that organizations create a
culture of technological risk taking and exploration among staff. This can be implemented
through dedicated time to explore and trial new tools, robust peer workshops and personal
learning networks, and encouragement and modeling from leadership in taking appropriate risks.
Transactional Recommendations
There are a series of proposed recommendations to bring about organizational change by
improving transactional factors affecting technology implementation. As noted in the study,
communication and decision making regarding technology integration are most effective when
originating from leadership in a top-down approach. In a school setting, this type of leadership is
categorized as transformational leadership, as opposed to instructional leadership, managerial
62
leadership, moral leadership, distributed leadership, or teacher leadership (Bush & Glover,
2014). According to Hallinger (2003), transformational leadership focuses on variables in the
change process to influence learning conditions. Transformational leaders attempt to shape and
create the desired environment instead of reacting to it (Avolio & Bass, 1988). Transformational
leadership also encourages employees to adopt and implement centrally determined policies,
which, in this case, are related to technology; when done well, these can engage everyone in the
achievement of educational objectives (Bush & Glover, 2014). It is recommended that
organizations create systems to support communication and decision making regarding
technology implementation structures and processes originating with leadership. This can be
implemented through accountability mechanisms aimed at increasing transparency as well as
access to information. As noted by specialists, leadership needs to create a clear technological
plan tied to the mission and vision, with aligned technology expectations for staff.
As noted in the study, professional development that supports teachers’ understanding of
technological tools and their varied applications can help students better understand and apply
the tools. This can be tied to key principles of learning, such as situating learning in the context
of real-life problems and that learning happens when prior knowledge is incorporated, instruction
demonstrates what is to be learned, and learners apply and transfer new knowledge to their
everyday lives (Merrill, 2002). The recommendation is for organizations to create professional
development that supports the development of the application and understanding of
technological tools in various contexts, versus just the tool’s functionality. This can be
implemented through initial extensive professional development surrounding contexts and
understanding, such as scenario-based exploration, paired with sustained professional
development for each new initiative focusing on technical proficiency as well as application. As
63
noted by specialists, peer modeling and hands-on workshops are effective models for educational
technology professional development.
Limitations and Delimitations
A discussion of the limitations, or aspects outside of the researcher’s control, are
important to ensuring the quality of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study was limited
to the small sample of seven educational technology specialists. Some additional limitations of
the study are that the positionality of the researcher may have influenced or biased respondents,
the time limits of the interview may have curtailed more detailed and accurate information, and
participants current or future roles and relationships with schools may have impacted the
information they were willing to share. This study was further limited by only incorporating a
small sampling of different educational settings. Further, due to the niche population and
convenience sampling selection strategies, generalizable results were limited.
Delimitations, or what the researcher can control that may affect validity, were also
carefully considered (Maxwell, 2012). One delimitation of the study was the design of the
interview questions focused on addressing specific factors from the Burke-Litwin framework.
Additional delimitations include the number of interviews conducted and the types of interview
questions asked to participants. By purposefully selecting participants knowledgeable of how
these factors affect integration within schools, the study is more targeted and valid (Creswell,
2014).
Future Research
This study sought to explore the external, transactional, and transformational factors
influencing technology integration practices in K–12 schools, though focused on 6-12 schools.
This focus was selected due to the body of research focusing on larger organizational factors
64
affecting implementation projects of any kind in schools and the emerging research on the effects
of COVID-19 on technology implementation in schools. The implications COVID-19 had and
will continue to have on the organizational structures of schools, as they relate to technology
implementation, inspire the need for future research. Schools will benefit from learning about
structures put in place during COVID-19 for emergency technology usage, which could support
more effective implementation practices when learning returns to in-person.
The relationship between individual factors influencing effective technology integration
in schools also warrants future research. In this study, professional development was discussed
under the components of culture and organizational systems; however, given that all
interviewees detailed the role of professional development in technology implementation
initiatives, organizations would benefit from more detailed research on the specific types of
professional development, and structures needed, to support effective integration. Relatedly,
other individual factors such as self-efficacy and individual knowledge and skills, and how they
relate to implementation efforts, should further be explored.
Another area of needed future research relates to knowledge framework tools. Specialists
referenced specific frameworks as they relate to teacher integration levels, such as SAMR or
TPACK as described in the literature review. Yet, none of them employed such tools in their
practice. They only noted that it would likely be helpful in improving implementation.
During the interviews, specialists referenced additional factors influencing technology
implementation that were outside the scope of the research questions, but should be addressed by
future research. Specialists referenced how the allocation of funds on technology, professional
development, and personnel within an organization might affect implementation outcomes.
Specialists also noted that dedicated technology personnel could affect implementation
65
outcomes, depending on the existing organizational and leadership structures within the school.
This was also tied to ideas exploring the connection between staff technology implementation
evaluations and mission alignment.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to assess factors that influence effective technology
integration strategies in K–12 schools to uncover potential best practices and solutions for
increasing technology integration success rates. Numerous recommendations related to external,
transformation, and transactional factors were proposed. These were to incorporate technology
into data-driven pedagogical techniques, incorporate technological principles into the school’s
mission and vision, build knowledge of effective pedagogical practices before implementing new
technologies, tie technology integration to pedagogical practices, create a culture of
technological risk-taking and exploration, create systems that support communication and
decision making regarding technology implementation structures and processes, and create
professional development that supports the application and understanding of technological tools.
Furthermore, future research should examine three areas: structures put in place during COVID-
19, individual factors and the specific types of professional development and structures needed to
support effective integration, and the role of knowledge framework tools such as TPACK and
SAMR.
I interviewed technology integration specialists to learn how to create better learning
opportunities for students through technology use. While the field of technology in schools is
widely studied, there is little research tying all aspects related to effectively using technology in
schools with students into a set of best practices or guidelines. This study also found there are
many opportunities and potential benefits for using technology in schools, but there need to be
66
better systems in place at every level in organizations to support and actualize this use. Further,
there needs to be more uniformity and agreement between schools regarding what meaningful or
effective learning is in general and how technology can support that.
67
References
Anglin, M. S. (2017). Technology Integration by General Education Teachers of English
Language Learners [ Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Walden University,
Washington.
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technology pedagogical content
knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55, 1656–1662.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1972). The field of educational
technology: A statement of definition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17(8), 36–43.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1977). Educational technology:
Definition and glossary of terms. Association for Educational Communications and
Technology.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma and beyond. In J. G.
Hunt, B. R. Baloga, H. P. Dachler, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas
(pp. 29–50). Pergamon Press.
Bakia, M., Mitchell, K., & Yang, E. (2007). State strategies and practices for educational
technology: Volume I—Examining the enhancing education through technology program
[Annual report]. U.S. Department of Education.
www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/netts-vol1.pdf
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn’t
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
68
Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One to one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from
the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and
Assessment, 9(2), 4–58.
Becker, H. J., & Riel, M. M. (1999). Teacher professionalism, school work culture and the
emergence of constructivist-compatible pedagogies. Center for Research on Information
Technology and Organizations.
Beghetto, R. A. (2018). Taking beautiful risks in education. Educational Leadership, 76(4), 18–
24.
Biggs, J. B. (1990). Teaching: Design for Learning. in B. Ross (ed). Teaching for Effective
Learning. Sydney: HERDSA.
Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable
innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science
in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3503_2
Bond, M. (2020). Schools and emergency remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A
living rapid systematic review. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 191–247.
Bonfiglio-Pavisich, N. (2018). Technology and pedagogy integration: A model for meaningful
technology integration. Australian Educational Computing, 33(1).
Brown, S. L. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the
soul. Penguin.
Bullock, D. (2004). Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that
preservice teachers encounter as they attempt to gain experience teaching with
69
technology during field placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 12(2), 211–237.
Bulman, G., & Fairlie, R. W. (2016). Technology and education: Computers, software, and the
internet. In Handbook of the Economics of Education, 5, 239–280.
Burke, W. (1994). Diagnostic models for organization development. In A. Howard, &
Associates. (Eds.), Diagnosis for organizational change: Methods and models (pp. 53–
84). Guilford Press.
Burke, W., & Litwin, G. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change.
Journal of Management, 18, 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership
& Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680
Chang, I. H. (2012). The effect of principals’ technological leadership on teachers’ technological
literacy and teaching effectiveness in Taiwanese elementary schools. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 328–340.
Center for Social Organization of Schools. (1983). School uses of microcomputers: Reports from
a national survey (Issue no. 1). Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization
of Schools.
Chea, T. (2009, August 11). California names digital textbooks that meet standards. Mercury
News. https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/08/11/california-names-first-digital-
textbooks-that-meet-standards-for-high-school-math-science/
Choy, D., Wong, A. F., & Gao, P. (2009). Student teachers’ intentions and actions on integrating
technology into their classrooms during student teachings: A Singapore study. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 175-195.
70
Christensen, R., Eichhorn, K., Prestridge, S., Petko, D., Sligte, H., Baker, R., Alayyar, G., &
Knezek, G. (2018). Supporting learning leaders for the effective integration of technology
into schools. Technology. Knowledge and Learning, 23(3), 457–472.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9385-9
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Crompton, H., & Keane, J. (2012). Implementation of a one-to-one iPod touch program in a
middle school. Journal of interactive online learning, 11(1).
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95(2),
185–210.
Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University
Press.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high
school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004813
Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education
technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279–307.
https://doi.org/10.2190/7W71-QVT2-PAP2-UDX7
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). Policies that support professional
development in an era of reform. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher
learning: New policies, new practices (pp. ). Teachers College Press.
71
Davis, M. (2019, May 14). K–12 districts wasting millions by not using purchased software, new
analysis finds. EdWeek Market Brief. https://marketbrief.edweek.org
Davies, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating
educational technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45–52.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-0527-3
Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in schools. In Handbook of research
on educational communications and technology (pp. 841–853). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_68
Dawson, K., & Rakes, G. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on the
integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
36, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2003.10782401
Dede, C. (1995, Oct. 12). Testimony to the U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee
on Science and Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Joint Hearing on
Educational Technology in the 21st Century.
Delgado, A. J., Wardlow, L., McKnight, K., & O’Malley, K. (2015). Educational technology: A
review of the integration, resources, and effectiveness of technology in K–12 classrooms.
Journal of Information Technology Education, 14, 14. https://doi.org/10.28945/2298
Dexter, S. L., Anderson, R. E., & Becker, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ views of computers as catalysts
for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education,
31, 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.1999.10782252
Dolan, R. P., Hall, T. E., Banerjee, M., Chun, E., & Strangman, N. (2005). Applying principles
of universal design to test delivery: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test
72
performance of high school students with learning disabilities. The Journal of
Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7).
Duran, M., Brunvand, S., Ellsworth, J., & Sendag, S. (2012). Impact of research-based
professional development: Investigation of inservice teacher learning and practice in wiki
integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 313–334.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782593
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683
Ertmer, P. A., Gopalakrishnan, S., & Ross, E. M. (2001). Technology-using teachers: Comparing
perceptions of exemplary technology use to best practice. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 33(5).
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How
knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect culture. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
& Education, 59(2), 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Escueta, M., & Holloway, S. (2019). Investment in education technology across the globe:
Where profit meets purpose. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3489543
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, S. 1177, 114th Cong. (2015).
73
Feist, D., & Reid, D. (2018). Technology and teaching: Technology and student-centered
pedagogy in 21st century classrooms. In Handbook of research on digital content, mobile
learning, and technology integration models in teacher education (pp. 69-87). IGI
Global.
Fiske, E., & Hammond, B. (1997). Identifying quality in American colleges and universities.
Planning for Higher Education, 26(1), 8–15.
Fullan, M. G. (1995). The limits and the potential of professional development. In T. R. Guskey
& M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms and
practices. Teachers College Press.
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526441867
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S.
public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). U.S. Department of Education.
Gülbahar, Y. (2007). Technology Planning: A roadmap to successful technology integration in
schools. Computers & Education, 49(4), 943–956.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.12.002
Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on
student achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2).
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015005005
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the Practice of Instructional
and Transformational Leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329–352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005
74
Hannafin, M. J. (1992). Emerging technologies, ISD, and learning environments: Critical
perspectives. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 49–63.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296706
Hansen, J. W. (2003). To change perceptions of technology programs. The Journal of
Technology Studies, 29, 16–19. https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v29i2.a.10
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203846933
Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content
knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 393–416.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. D. (1993). Instructional media and the new technologies
of instruction. Macmillan.
Hercleuous, L. (2001). An ethnographic study of culture in the context of organizational change.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 426–446.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886301374003
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on
technology integration into two social studies classrooms. Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376
Hitlin, P. & Rainie, L. (2005). Teens, technology, and school (Data memo). Pew Internet &
American Life Project.
Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.),
Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 154–170). Allyn and Bacon.
75
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teaching knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2),
277–302.
Ibrahim, A. A. (2015). Evolutionary nature of the definition of educational technology.
International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 5(2).
International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). Standards for administrators.
https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/Libraries/Images/Standards/Download/ISTE%20
Standards%20for%20Administrators%2C%202009%20(Permitted%20Educational%20U
se).pdf.
Jacobson, M. J., Levin, J. A., & Kapur, M. (2019). Education as a complex system: Conceptual
and methodological implications. Educational Researcher, 48(2), 112–119.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19826958
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. SAGE Publications.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson R.T., & Smith K. A. (1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the
College Classroom, Interaction Book Co., Edina, MN
Kaden, U. (2020). COVID-19 school closure-related changes to the professional life of a K–12
teacher. Education Sciences, 10(6), 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060165
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Burke, P. F. (2018). Teachers’ technology adoption
and practices: Lessons learned from the IWB phenomenon. Teacher Development, 22(4),
481–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2017.1363083
76
Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008). Computer technology integration and student
learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6),
560–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9123-5
Kent, T. W., & McNergney, R. F. (1999). Will Technology Really Change Education? From
Blackboard to Web. Corwin Press.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher
education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review.
Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge
(TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and
practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers &
Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-analytic studies of findings on computer-based instruction. In E. Baker
& H. F. O’Neil, Jr., (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training (pp. 9–34).
Routledge
Kurland, H., Peretz, H., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (2010). Leadership style and organizational
learning: The mediate effect of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration,
48(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231011015395
Law, N. (2008). Teacher learning beyond knowledge for pedagogical innovations with ICT. In J.
Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary
77
and secondary education (pp. 425–434). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-
73315-9_25
Law, N., Pelgrum, W., & Plomp, T. (Eds.). (2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the
world. Findings form the IEA SITES 2006 Study. CERC/Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8928-2
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.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309921
Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study.
Computers & Education, 49, 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.06.013
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060
Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What do we already know about successful school
leadership. AERA division a task force on developing research in educational leadership,
1-60.
Liao, Y. C., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Karlin, M., Glazewski, K., & Brush, T. (2017). Supporting
change in teacher practice: Examining shifts of teachers’ professional development
preferences and needs for technology integration. Contemporary Issues in Technology &
Teacher Education, 17(4), 522–548.
Machado, L. J., & Chung, C. J. (2015). Integrating Technology: The Principals’ Role and Effect.
International Education Studies, 8(5), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n5p43
78
Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2002). Teacher knowledge of educational technology: A
case study of student/mentor teacher pairs. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
26, 427–462. https://doi.org/10.2190/JXBR-2G0G-1E4T-7T4M
Marshall, S. (2010). Change, technology and higher education: Are universities capable of
organizational change? ALT-J Association for Learning Technology Journal, 18(3), 179–
192. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687769.2010.529107
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design. Sage.
Mayer, R. (1984). Aids to text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 19, 30–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529279
Means, B. (1993). Using technology to support education reform. United States Government
Printing Office.
Mecklenburger, J. (1989). Technology in the 1990s: Ten secrets for success. Principal, 69(2), 6–
9.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Murphy, R., Penuel, W. R., Means, B., Korbak, C., Whaley, A., & Allen, J. E. (2002). E-DESK:
A review of recent evidence on the effectiveness of discrete educational software. SRI
International.
79
Newhouse, C. P., & Clarkson, B. D. (2008). Using learning environment attributes to evaluate
the impact of ICT on learning in schools. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced
Learning, 3, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206808000483
Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning
powered by technology. National Education Technology Plan 2010. U.S. Department of
Education.
Odden, A., Picus, L., & Fermanich, M. (2003). An evidenced-based approach to school finance
adequacy in Arkansas. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Oliver, M. (2013). Learning Technology: Theorising the Tools We Study. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 44(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2011.01283.x
Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods
approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417–441.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2009.10782537
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital
natives. Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1984). New theories for new learnings. School Psychology Review, 13(4), 422–428.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1984.12085122
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Selecting samples and administering surveys (Part 2 of 3) (REL 2016-160). U.S.
Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/
80
Peeraer, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). The limits of programmed professional development on
integration of information and communication technology in education. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 28(6), 1039–1056. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.809
Pelgrum, W. J. (1993). Attitudes of school principals and teachers towards computers: Does it
matter what they think? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(2), 199–212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-491X(93)90007-E
Penuel, W. R. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A
research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782463
Perkins, D. (1992). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational
Technology, 31(5), 18–23.
Polly, D., McGee, J. R., & Martin, C. S. (2010). Employing technology-rich mathematical tasks
to develop teachers’ technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK).
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 29, 455–472.
Ramorola, M. Z. (2013). Challenge of effective technology integration into teaching and
learning. Africa Education Review, 10(4), 654–670.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2013.853559
Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology.
Prentice Hall.
Richey, R. C. (2008). Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field. TechTrends, 52(1),
24–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0108-2
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
81
Ross, S. M. (2020). Technology infusion in K–12 classrooms: A retrospective look at three
decades of challenges and advancements in research and practice. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 68, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-
09756-7
Savenye, W., Davidson, G., & Smith, P. (1991). Teaching Instructional Design in a Computer
Literacy Course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 49–58.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296438
Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.
Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field.
AECT.
Senjov-Makohon, N. (2006, December). How experienced teachers learn in the information age.
Paper presented at the ASCILITE, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p201.pdf
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2008). Evaluation of the Texas
Technology Immersion Pilot: Outcomes for the Third Year (2006-07). Texas Center for
Educational Research.
Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the
implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student
achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(4), 6–10.
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. (2000). 2000 research report on the effectiveness of technology in
schools (7th ed.). Software and Information Industry Association.
82
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2012). Digest of education statistics 2011 (NCES 2012-001).
Government Printing Office.
Spector, J. M. (2010). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology.
Interactive Educational Multimedia, 1, 27–37.
State of the States. (2019). The classroom connectivity gap is closed.
https://stateofthestates.educationsuperhighway.org/
Stoll, P. F. (1991). SED/Apple Computer, Inc. Partnership Program. Technology Applications
Quarterly, 2(2), 3–16.
Tan, S. C. (2010). Technology leadership: Lessons from empirical research.
Technavio. (2016). Education technology market in North America 2015-2019.
https://www.technavio.com/report/north-america-education-technology-education-
technology-market
Trinidad, S., Newhouse, P., & Clarkson, B. (2004). A framework for leading school change in
using ICT. In S. Trinidad & J. Pearson (Eds.), Using ICT in education: Effective
leadership, change and models of best practice. Pearson Education Asia.
Journal, T. H. E. (1997). Los Angeles County schools make strong gains in second year of
ambitious technology initiative. T.H.E. Journal, 25(1), 18.
Tondeur, J., Kershaw, L. H., Vanderlinde, R. R., & Van Braak, J. (2013). Getting inside the
black box of technology integration in education: Teachers’ stimulated recall of
classroom observations. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(3).
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.16
83
Topper, A., & Lancaster, S. (2013). Common challenges and experiences of school districts that
are implementing one-to-one computing initiatives. Computers in the Schools, 30(4),
346–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.844640
UNESCO. (2011). UNESCO ICT competency framework for teachers. United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
United States Congress. (1983). Computer Contribution Act of 1983: Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means.
United States National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Enhancing education through technology. Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 2001. www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2002). No child left behind: A desktop
reference. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/
nclbreference/page.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017
national education technology plan update. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf
Vega, V., & Robb, M. B. (2019). The Common Sense census: Inside the 21st-century classroom.
Common Sense Media.
Vigdor, J. L., & Ladd, H. F. (2010). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and
student achievement (Working Paper no. 16078). National Bureau of Economic
Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16078 https://doi.org/10.3386/w16078
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Preparation for interviewing. In Learning from strangers: The art and
method of qualitative interview studies (pp. 51–59). The Free Press.
84
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and
student achievement in mathematics.
Williams, D., Coles, L., Wilson, K., Richardson, A., & Tuson, J. (2000). Teachers and ICT:
Current use and future needs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 307–
320. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00164
Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer
school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture.
American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039001165
Woolf, B. P. (2010). A roadmap for education technology.
http://www.cra.org/ccc/docs/groe/GROE%20Roadmap%20for%20Education%20Techno
logy%20Final%20Report.pdf
Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory
perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5–30.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology
innovations. Teachers College Record, 104, 482–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9620.00170
85
Appendix: Interview Protocol
The interview began with a scripted introduction including a reminder of protocols,
confidentiality, and goals.
“Thank you for agreeing to meet with me today to discuss educational technology, I know there
is a lot going on right now and your time is valuable. The interview should last approximately
one hour and will be recorded via Zoom cloud storage so that I can ensure I accurately capture
the information. There are procedures in place to protect your confidentiality, I will avoid using
your name or the name of any school or organizations during the interview, and throughout the
data analysis process I will use a pseudonym instead of your real name. Do you have any
questions about this? Do I have your permission to record?
Before we get started with the questions, I’ll give you a brief overview of the study and its
objectives. My study is looking at the factors that affect meaningful and effective technology
integration, with the goal of identifying best practices for schools to employ in the future. My
research will include interviewing educational technology specialists, like yourself; your insights
and experiences with the subject will be valuable to the study. Do you have any questions? Okay
let’s get started by looking at your experiences with schools….”
Interview Questions
1. Can you describe how you got started with educational technology, and in what
capacity you work with schools?
• Background as it relates to educational technology
• How get connected to work with schools
2. How do new educational technology projects in a school typically get started? (RQ1,
external factors; RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission, and culture)
• What is the catalyst for new projects?
• What are the primary reasons why educational technology projects are
initiated? First steps
3. How do you typically work with schools on projects? (RQ2, transformational -
strategy, mission, leadership and culture; RQ3, transactional - practices, systems,
procedures).
• How do you plan?
• How do you typically communicate? Collaborate?
• In what ways, if at all, do you collaborate with school leaders, teachers,
other stakeholders?
o What is the nature of the collaboration?
• To what extent are you influenced by existing organizational documents,
structures, policies, etc?
• What other factors affect your initial work with a school?
86
4. Based on your experiences in the field, can you define what “effective integration” of
technology might be? (RQ1, external; RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission,
leadership and culture; RQ3, transactional - practices, systems, procedures).
• How would you distinguish between effective use of technology and
meaningful integration into school and classroom practices?
5. What does effective integration look like? (RQ1, external; RQ2, transformational -
strategy, mission, leadership and culture; RQ3, transactional - practices, systems,
procedures)
• What does it look like for staff, students, parents, organization as a whole,
admin, etc.
• What kinds of things are happening in the classroom?
• How would you measure it?
• Is it common?
6. Can you describe a specific example of meaningful educational technology integration
in a school? (RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission, leadership and culture; RQ3,
transactional - practices, systems, procedures)
• What were the students doing?
• What were the teachers doing?
• What were the leaders doing?
• What made the integration effective?
7. Can you describe a specific example of educational technology integration in a school
that would be categorized as not meaningful or effective? (RQ2, transformational -
strategy, mission, leadership and culture; RQ3, transactional - practices, systems,
procedures)
• What role did administration play?
• What role did teachers play?
• What role did students play?
• What made it ineffective?
• Is this common?
8. When working in schools, how do you assess or measure educational technology
integration? (RQ1, external; RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission, leadership and
culture; RQ3, transactional - practices, systems, procedures)
• What drives the need for assessment (external sources, organization,
specialist, etc.)
9. What are some common strategies or best practices that you employ to help schools
integrate technology meaningfully and effectively when starting a project from scratch?
(RQ1, external; RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission, leadership and culture; RQ3,
transactional - practices, systems, procedures)
• Can you walk me through the steps
• What are the prerequisites for success
87
10. What are some of the most common barriers you see in terms of effective integration?
(RQ1, external; RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission, leadership and culture; RQ3,
transactional - practices, systems, procedures)
• Are those different than what staff would identify? Admin? Families?
11. How have you mitigated the barriers in the past with schools you’ve worked with?
(RQ1, external; RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission, leadership and culture; RQ3,
transactional - practices, systems, procedures)
12. In your experience, what is the effect of professional development on implementation
outcomes? What types of professional development are the most effective and
ineffective? (RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission, leadership and culture; RQ3,
transactional - practices, systems, procedures)
13. What prerequisites should be in place before a school begins to implement
educational technology initiatives, programs, or projects? (RQ2, transformational -
strategy, mission, leadership and culture; RQ3, transactional - practices, systems,
procedures)
• What resources?
• What skills?
• What systems or structures?
• What procedures?
14. In schools where you consider integration to be success, what factors do you feel
most contribute to the success? (RQ1, external; RQ2, transformational - strategy,
mission, leadership and culture; RQ3, transactional - practices, systems, procedures)
15. What strategies would you use to support a school in moving from ineffective to
effective integration? (RQ1, external; RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission,
leadership and culture; RQ3, transactional - practices, systems, procedures)
16. How have technology implementation processes and procedures changed due to
COVID? (RQ1, external; RQ2, transformational - strategy, mission, leadership and
culture; RQ3, transactional - practices, systems, procedures)
• What are the implications on current efforts to integrate technology?
• What kind of impact do you think COVID will make on future technology
integration efforts?
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Indonesian teachers' adoption of technology in the K-12 classroom: a TAM-based quantitative study
PDF
Examining technology obsolescence in music scoring studios
PDF
Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners
PDF
School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty
PDF
When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study
PDF
Father engagement in the child welfare system: a promising practice study
PDF
Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches
PDF
Reducing suspensions through implementation of schoolwide PBIS
PDF
Integrating the industry sector in STEM learning ecosystems: a multicase study
PDF
KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study
PDF
Success can happen out of low scores! Addressing nursing shortage with SCHOOLS ACT prep: a Kellogg logic model theory of change removing systemic barriers to ACT 18 score attainment for community...
PDF
Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices
PDF
Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study
PDF
Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback
PDF
Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model
PDF
Training qualified rural area teachers in Malawi using synchronous virtual learning (SVL) information and communication technologies (ICTs) platforms
PDF
Instructional designers in the new learning paradigm: COVID-19’s impact on roles and responsibilities of instructional designers
PDF
Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida
PDF
The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study
PDF
Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gardner, Jessica
(author)
Core Title
Educational technology integration: a search for best practices
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2021-08
Publication Date
08/10/2021
Defense Date
07/16/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
educational technology,Instructional Technology,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Malloy, Courtney (
committee chair
), Phillips, Jennifer (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jessiegardner@gmail.com,jlgardne@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15723559
Unique identifier
UC15723559
Legacy Identifier
etd-GardnerJes-10032
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Gardner, Jessica
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
educational technology