University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 1

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING AMONG PUBLIC SCHOOL
TEACHERS INTEGRATING ONE-TO-ONE COMPUTING: AN EVALUATION STUDY

by
Jennifer Burks

_________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2018

Copyright 2018 Jennifer Burks
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and most importantly, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation and love to my
family. I want to thank my husband, Gannon, for always being there to support me in all that I
do and for encouraging me to pursue a doctorate. Next, I would like to thank my daughter’s
Bailey and Chloe, who inspire me each day and are a daily reminder of love, strength, courage,
and resilience. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, Judy and Ken, for their support and
encouragement throughout my life. I am grateful for the unconditional love and understanding
while I was in the program and every day.
I would also like to thank USC Rossier School of Education for the opportunity to be part
of this wonderful Doctor of Education in the Organizational Change and Leadership program. It
has been a challenging and rewarding experience. Through this journey, I had the honor to learn
from distinguished professors and colleagues and to build life-long friendships. I will forever be
grateful for the opportunity to be part of the USC Trojan family.
Lastly, I have been fortunate enough to have amazing people in my life that have
supported me along my academic journey. I would like to thank my dissertation committee
members, Dr. Artineh Samkian, Dr. Jenifer Crawford, and Dr. Holly Ferguson, for guiding me
through this dissertation process. Dr. Samkian: thank you for guiding me through this
dissertation process, for the support and the feedback. I would not have been able to do it
without your encouragement and constructive feedback. Dr. Crawford: thank you for
introducing me to the doctoral program my first semester, starting me on the right track, and
showing me how to be successful. Dr. Ferguson: your support and guidance was a pivotal
turning point in my success, and I cannot thank you enough.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 8
Organizational Context and Mission 9
The Importance of Addressing the Problem 9
Organizational Performance Goal 10
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions 15
Methodological Approach 16
Review of the Literature 16
The Importance of Technology in Today’s Classrooms 17
Building Teachers’ Technological Capacity in a K-12 Classroom 17
One-to-One Classroom Environment 17
Common Core Integration 18
College and Career Readiness 19
Support of Technology Use 20
Professional Development 20
Embedded Coaching 22
Administrative Support 23
Conclusion 23
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences 23
Knowledge and Skills 23
Integrating Technology in a One-to-One Learning Environment 24
Teacher Awareness of Effectiveness 26
Motivation 27
Self-Efficacy Theory 28
Teacher Self-Efficacy 29
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 4

Organizational Influences 30
Cultural Model Influences 30
Cultural Setting Influences 32
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation 35
and the Organizational Context
Participating Stakeholders Sampling and Recruitment 39
Observation Sampling Strategy and Rationale 41
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale 42
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale 42
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 43
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation 43
Observations 44
Interviews 46
Data Analysis 48
Findings 49
Teachers Perceived that the Formal Professional Development and In-Class 50
Coaching Increased their Knowledge for Integrating One-to-One Computing
Organizational Influences that Support Teachers’ Knowledge 50
Formal Professional Development 52
In-Class Coaching 54
Organizational Challenges 58
Teachers Attempted to Use Metacognitive Strategies to Reflect on How They 60
Were Using Technology and Integrating it in the Classroom
Feelings of Self-Efficacy Inspired Teachers in the Technology Academy to 64
Coach Other Teachers
Conclusion Related to the Findings 67
Implications for Practice 69

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 5

Recommendations for Practice 69
Procedural Knowledge 70
Metacognitive Knowledge 71
Self-Efficacy 71
Organizational Recommendations 72

Future Research 74
Conclusion 75
References 77
Appendices 86
Appendix A: Protocols 86
Appendix B: Credibility and Trustworthiness 94
Appendix C: Ethics 96
Appendix D: Limitations and Delimitations 98
Appendix E: Definitions 100
Appendix F: Literature Review Outline 101

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholders Performance Goals 15
Table 2: Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 34

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 36
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 8

Introduction of the Problem of Practice

As much as 99% of the United States population understands that teaching and learning
21
st
century technology skills are critical to the future economy, and 80% know that the skills
students must learn in school are different from 20 years ago (Duvall & Pasque, 2013). For
schools to respond to the innovative and recent demands of technology, school districts have
begun to incorporate increased amounts of computer technologies into classrooms for both
teacher and student use (Levin & Wadmany, 2005). Technology is a way to transform learning
by providing student experiences that would be unavailable without the device and the Internet,
but it requires teachers to shift their ideas of both pedagogy and instruction. However, according
to the National Education Association (2008), most teachers do not feel prepared to integrate
technology into daily instructional practices, and too often, technology is not being effectively
integrated into the classroom. Therefore, teachers must receive training opportunities to increase
their knowledge, skills, and experiences regarding technology and pedagogy to shift their
educational thinking (McCormick & Scrimshaw, 2001). Teachers are increasingly required to
understand, implement, and integrate computer technology in their classrooms; yet the
professional development and training they receive are often inadequate (Cuban, 2013). It is
critical that technology is being integrated in the classroom to transform learning so that it
provides new experiences and opportunities for students to problem-solve, think critically, and
connect globally. If teachers do not receive the technological training that they are desperately
needing, they will not have the knowledge or skills to integrate the required curriculum and
technology standards, and students will continue to graduate from school unprepared to
successfully enter post-secondary education or the workplace (Larson & Miller, 2011).
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 9

Organizational Context and Mission
Bentley School District (BSD) is a K-8 public school district that is comprised of
approximately 10,000 students from 17 schools and encompasses the multiple neighboring cities
(Bentley is a pseudonym). The mission statement for the Bentley School District is to prepare all
students to be college and career ready and productive world citizens in a changing society
(Bentley School District, 2016). Bentley School District is a diverse school district, with 86%
minority enrollment, more than the California state average of 75% (Bentley School District,
2016). The district’s ethnic makeup is comprised of over 45% Hispanic, 40% Asian, and 10%
White, and approximately 70% of the students are on free or reduced lunch. The District’s
vision is college and career readiness for all (BSD, 2016). In addition to the District’s vision,
three identified focus areas drive all of the initiatives in the district. They are 21
st
century
learning, blended learning, and collaboration, all of which focus on technology integration in the
classroom learning environment. To support the District’s vision and school board goals, the
organization has placed a strong emphasis on technology integration by purchasing one-to-one
computing for every classroom. All of these goals exemplify the BSD School Board goals,
which include: 1) utilizing high-quality teaching practices and innovative technologies, 2)
promoting 21
st
century learning, and 3) providing professional learning opportunities to promote
continuous improvement.
The Importance of Addressing the Problem
Numerous research studies have found that integrating technology in the classroom will
increase engagement, motivate students, and accelerate student achievement (Smith, 2016;
Matzen & Edmunds, 2007; Wei & Hindman, 2011; Brush, Glazewski, & Hew, 2008). Students
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 10

who have opportunities to engage in student-centered learning and understand how to use
technology as a learning tool are better prepared with the college and career readiness skills to be
successful in high school, post-secondary school, and the workplace. In addition, technology
allows students to quickly access information, connect with others around the globe, and interact
with information. Lastly, technology is embedded in the day-to-day practices in the workplace
and will continue to influence what defines the skillset of the future workforce. In fact,
according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017), by 2020, 77% of jobs will require
technological skills. Technology is changing the way people learn, live, and work. Therefore,
teachers must have the knowledge, skills, and training to ensure that students receive the
technological skills necessary to become college and career ready. Furthermore, it is critical that
teachers feel self-efficacious when integrating technology into pedagogical practices which
includes a technology-rich, one-to-one classroom environment. Through professional
development, teachers have the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills, thus increasing
their feelings of self-efficacy and the likelihood that they will continue integrating technology in
additional subject areas.
Organizational Performance Goal
To address the need for teacher literacy in the area of integrating technology into core
subjects, Bentley School District’s goal was to have 100% of their certificated teachers
participate in a minimum of one year of the District’s Technology Academy by June 2020. This
goal broke down to 20% of the teachers per year beginning at its inception in 2015. The
Executive Director of Technology established the Technology Academy in 2014 emphasizing
the importance of technology integration into core subject areas and provided opportunities to
build teachers’ knowledge and skills to support the integration of one-to-one computing as it
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 11

aligned to the Common Core State Standards. The Technology Academy was a one or two-year
commitment that incorporated professional development, in-class coaching, online curriculum
resources, and technology equipment. For this study, the term technology or technology
equipment referred to technical hardware such as a laptop, Chromebook, or iPad that included
access to online curriculum and web-based software or applications for student learning. The
term professional development meant professional learning opportunities provided to teachers
during the instructional day outside of their classroom, which was covered by a District provided
substitute teacher. Lastly, the term in-class coaching or embedded coaching referred to the
support a classroom teacher received in his/her classroom with a District technology coach but
would also fall under the label of professional development. Due to the limited number of
educational technology coaches and funding, there was a maximum number of teachers who
could participate in the Academy each year which ranged between 85-105. However, any
teacher who applied and was not accepted into the Academy would be automatically selected the
following year as long as it was not over the 20% percent threshold per year. If a teacher
completed one year of the Technology Academy, he/she had the opportunity to apply for a
second year which included additional professional development, in-class coaching, and other
educational software programs.
The Technology Academy provided opportunities for teachers to gain the procedural
knowledge and skills through professional developments and in-class coaching necessary to
successfully integrate one-to-one computing into the classroom. Foltos (2014) acknowledged
that technology related standards were infused throughout the Common Core State Standards
requiring educators to integrate technology into core subjects. In addition, technology is a focal
point for schools, transforming, and even revolutionizing teaching and learning (Yarbro,
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 12

McKnight, Elliott, Jurz, & Wardlow, 2016). In 2015, 85 teachers applied to the Technology
Academy in Bentley. Due to the success of the program and the high interest, over 145 teachers
applied to the academy in year two and 105 were selected. Three years after inception, over 160
teachers applied to be part of the Technology Academy. A technology scope and sequence
served as a guideline and resource by aligning the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE) technology standards with the Common Core State Standards. Concurrently,
the SAMR model, developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, was used as a framework for evaluating
the four levels of technology integration. There are a number of other frameworks available such
as TPACK, RAT, P21, or ISTE, but the SAMR model was selected by the District because it
provided a simplistic and effective way for teachers to understand how they were using
technology in the classroom (Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006;
Voogt & Roblin, 2012). SAMR is a hierarchical model that stands for substitution,
augmentation, modification, and redefinition (Puentedura, 2012). Participants in the Technology
Academy began by cohort by attending two-days of summer training, followed by ongoing
professional development training sessions, and bi-monthly in-class coaching.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
The stakeholder group that benefitted most from the achievement of the organization’s
goal to increase technological training were the teachers who had completed their second year of
the Technology Academy as they would have substantially increased their knowledge and skills
to integrate technology in a one-to-one learning environment. Teachers demonstrated an
increased capacity to integrate one-to-one computing for student learning in the classroom and
understood how to transform student learning based on the SAMR model. By providing
teachers with opportunities to participate in the Technology Academy, teachers impacted student
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 13

learning, motivation, and college and career readiness (Yarbro, McKnight, Elliott, Kurz, &
Wardlow, 2016). Teachers in the Technology Academy received in-depth, ongoing training in
the area of integrating one-to-one computing into core subjects based on the SAMR framework
of technology integration to transform learning to prepare students with college and career
readiness skills to meet or exceed the Common Core Content Standards.
This study focused on the teachers who have completed two years of the Technology
Academy and examined how the information presented in the professional development training
and in-class coaching were transferred into classroom instruction. The Technology Academy
specifically addressed the BSD School Board goals, which included: 1) optimizing student
learning by utilizing high-quality teaching practices, innovative technologies, 2) promoting 21
st

century learning, and 3) professional learning opportunities to promote ongoing and continuous
improvement. Table 1 below presented the organizational mission, its overall performance goal,
along with the goals of three important stakeholder groups.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 14

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholders Performance Goals
_______________________________________________________________________

Organizational Mission
_______________________________________________________________________

The mission of Bentley School District is to prepare all students to be college and career
ready and productive world citizens in a changing society.
________________________________________________________________________

Organizational Performance Goal
________________________________________________________________________

By June 2020, 100 % of Bentley School District teachers will have participated in a
minimum of one year of the District’s Technology Academy.
_______________________________________________________________________
Stakeholder Goal 1 Stakeholder Goal 2 Stakeholder Goal 3
Teachers-Cohort 2 Teachers-Cohort 1 School Board
________________________________________________________________________

By June 2018, 100% of
teachers in cohort two
will integrate one-to-one
computing a minimum of
4 days per week in at
least one core subject and
thus transfer the content
from the professional
development training
sessions into classroom
instruction.

By June 2018, 100% of teachers
in cohort one will have
completed one year of the
District’s Technology Academy
and will begin to integrate one-
to-one computing a minimum
of 3 days per week in a core
subject area.

By 2018, the School
Board will understand
how one-to-one
computing integration
affects student outcomes,
fiscally supporting
additional years of the
Technology Academy.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 15

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to examine how teachers were integrating one-to-one
computing into their daily core instruction after receiving ongoing professional development and
in-class coaching support. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences related to achieving the stakeholder goal which enabled the organizational goal to be
met. While a complete evaluation of the Technology Academy would focus on all Bentley
stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders of focus in this analysis were the teachers
who participated and completed year two of the Technology Academy and more specifically,
upper elementary teachers who were teaching fourth, fifth, or sixth-grade. This particular group
of teachers in fourth, fifth, and sixth-grade participated in over 90% of the professional
developments, took part in at least 90% of the in-class coaching sessions, and had the one-to-one
computing in their classroom upon the inception of the Academy. Lastly, students in these upper
elementary classrooms were able to demonstrate their technological knowledge through more
extensive projects based on the SAMR model and the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE), had not previously incorporated technology in their classroom learning
environment prior to the Technology Academy, and participated in the yearly online state-
mandated testing.
As such, the questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What were Bentley School District fourth through sixth-grade teachers’ knowledge and
motivation related to integrating one-to-one computing in their classrooms after two
years of professional development?
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 16

2. What was the interaction between organizational culture and context and the fourth
through sixth-grade teachers’ knowledge and motivation to integrate one-to-one
computing in their classrooms?
Methodological Approach
This study employed a qualitative approach to data gathering and analysis as it related to
teachers’ professional development in the Technology Academy and the integration of one-to-
one computing in the classroom environment. The BSD staff’s current performance in relation
to the organizational goal was assessed using observations and interviews with a sample of
fourth through sixth-grade teachers who completed two years of the Technology Academy.
Research-based solutions were recommended, and an evaluation plan was developed upon
completion of data collection and analysis.
Review of the Literature

This section examines the importance of technological professional development for
public school teachers in K-12 education. Research on how to build the capacity among teachers
integrating technology in a one-to-one classroom environment was reviewed. In addition, this
section presents an in-depth discussion on scientifically based practices that built the
technological capacity of teachers to create an effective one-to-one learning environment that
supported college and career readiness. Following the general research literature, the review
moves to the Clark and Estes’ gap analytic conceptual framework and focuses specifically on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that were theorized as being required for
teachers to succeed in a one-to-one classroom environment.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 17

The Importance of Technology in Today’s Classrooms
Building Teachers’ Technological Capacity in a K-12 Classroom
Studies found that technology significantly influences classrooms across the nation. Brush
and Hew (2008) define the term technology integration as the use of technology to enhance what
teachers are doing in classrooms while improving student learning and student achievement.
Based on the US Department of Education, technology is now considered by most educators and
parents to be an integral part of providing a high-quality education (Ether, 2005). The National
Education Technology Plan for the U.S. Department of Education (2000) states that technology-
rich content is a national goal. Hughes (2005) recognizes technology as a transformational tool
that will change teacher instructional practices and roles in the classroom, but less than 33% of
public school teachers feel prepared to integrate technology into their teaching practices.
Technology has resulted in a pedagogical shift among many K-12 public schools who have
allocated resources and personnel to this focus and will be the catalyst for transforming teachers’
instructional practices (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). As technology continues to be implemented
throughout public schools, instructional practices are increasingly shifting towards a one-to-one
learning environment as a way to increase student engagement, motivation, and achievement.
One-to-One Classroom Environment

Studies have found that students in a one-to-one classroom environment are more
efficient, have higher levels of student achievement, and increased levels of engagement. One-
to-one computing refers to a learning environment where students and teachers have access to
personal computing devices to use as a tool for academic learning at any time during the
instructional day while extending learning beyond the classroom, and at the same time, bringing
a larger world into the classroom (Varier, Dumke, Abrams, Conklin, Barnes, & Hoover,
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 18

2017). According to Tongchai (2016), the goal of the evidence based one-to-one computing
model is designed to shift the standard of education by promoting collaborative, creative
learners, capable of working together in a self-regulating manner towards an increased
achievement.
One study at an alternative high school in Arkansas reported a decrease in discipline
referrals by more than 50% after integrating a one-to-one computing model while also increasing
the number of students who required recovering course credits by over 24% one year after
implementation (Smith, 2016). Harper and Milman (2016) conducted a quantitative research
study that showed schools with a one-to-one laptop program performed better than schools with
a one-to-five program, and that one-to-one computing integration increased the frequency and
meaningfulness of differentiation during classroom instruction. In addition, studies of student
achievement indicated that schools facing achievement gaps related to ability or socioeconomic
status could benefit from one-to-one programs (Harper & Milman, 2016). A one-to-one
classroom environment shifts pedagogical practices by providing opportunities for teachers to
differentiate learning that helps to increase student achievement, engagement, and productivity.
Common Core Integration

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are mandated in California and are heavily
embedded with technology. Technology has a profound influence on the Common Core State
Standards; it is not just a matter of what to teach using technology or the content knowledge, but
how to teach with technology (Roberts, Shedd, & Norman, 2012). Technology allows students
to further their learning and may constitute as the single most important opportunity to enhance
digital skills that can positively impact English Language Arts. However, without proper teacher
training and support, one school that was reviewed showed that technology could cause more
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 19

distraction than the intended purpose (Saine, 2013). According to Mouza (2003), the Common
Core State Standards acknowledge that technology is a tool, and teachers must understand how
to integrate specific technology tools into their core curriculum. Transforming education
through technology is becoming more commonplace at a national level, but there has to be a
balance between teaching the standards and purposefully integrating technology. An important
aspect of the Common Core State Standards is not only using technology in the classroom but
integrating it to ensure that students are college and career ready.
College and Career Readiness

College and career readiness are about preparing students for post-secondary education
and the workforce so that they can succeed in their future. Varier, Dumke, Abrams, Conklin,
Barnes, and Hoover (2007) state that traditional learning environments have failed to prepare
students for the 21
st
century workplace and the development of 21
st
century skills and
technological proficiency is consistent with goals of national educational policies, including
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). According to the US Department of
Education (2000), one of the fundamental reasons schools spend time and money on integrating
technology is to improve academic achievement for future success. The US Department of
Education (2004) states that preparing students so that they can fully participate in an
increasingly technological society continues to be a priority for many countries including the
United States, the Singapore Ministry of Education and the South Korean Ministry of Education.
A longitudinal case study was conducted which consisted of six teachers and 164 students using
one-to-one computing in grades four through six, and the research showed that there was a
radical shift in student engagement and authentic learning (Levin & Wadmany, 2005). One
particular teacher in that study viewed technology as an intellectual partner capable of
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 20

empowering student capabilities (Levin & Wadmany, 2005). College and career readiness skills
along with a strong foundation in digital literacy are essential to ensure that each student is
prepared for post-secondary education and the workplace.
Support of Technology Use

Research shows that to successfully implement and integrate technology into the
classroom, teachers must receive multiple levels of support. The key to the effective use of
technology in education relies heavily on how successfully teachers integrate technology into
their teaching, but part of the reason teachers are not effectively integrating technology is due to
the level of preparation teachers are receiving (Brush, Glazewski, & Hew, 2008). Moreover, a
quantitative research study that included 176 teachers who enrolled in a teacher education
program found that by enhancing their technology skill levels, they were better equipped to
integrate technology in the classroom (Brush, Glazewski, & Hew, 2008). According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (2000), only one-third of public school teachers felt
well-prepared to integrate technology into their teaching. Hughes (2005) states that teachers
need to have the technological understanding to draw upon when planning their instructional
lessons but preparing teachers to integrate technology effectively has been limited. Effectively
integrating technology requires time, support, and training that engages the teacher to make
changes to his/her pedagogy and instructional practices to support student learning and
outcomes.
Professional Development

Professional development and support are critical to ensuring that teachers have the
knowledge and skills to effectively integrate technology into their curriculum to enhance student
learning and support college and career readiness. One of the barriers to effectively
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 21

implementing educational technology is ensuring adequate professional development
(Niederhauser & Wessling, 2011). Based on a report from the National Center for Educational
Statistics (2000), only 33% of teachers surveyed felt prepared to use technology with their
students. Another report by the National Center for Educational Statistics (2009), indicated that
two-thirds of public school teachers in the United States received less than eight hours of training
for using technology with their students. In 2009, a report also showed that 78% of teachers
reported that the majority of their training had been through independent learning (Niederhauser
& Wessling, 2011). Hughes (2005) stated that teachers received only 5.9 hours of teacher
training on integrating technology into instruction and that the training sessions were traditional
sit-and-get learning sessions without follow-up support, which has been shown to be ineffective
in preparing teachers to integrate classroom technology. Levin and Wadmany (2005) state that it
is not adequate to just train teachers to use technology, but that the training must incorporate the
technology into modern pedagogical patterns based on new or modified educational practices.
Professional development must focus on instructional practices as they relate to technology
integration; a case study of nine schools showed that as teachers became more proficient in the
use of technology, they integrated it more effectively, and students took more control over their
own learning (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007).
One model used to support professional development in a one-to-one classroom
environment is the SAMR model. This model consists of four classifications of technology use
for instructional activities, which are Substitution (S), Augmentation (A), Modification (M), and
Redefinition (R) (Romrell, Kidder, & Wood, 2014). The SAMR model provides a framework
for educators to classify and evaluate technology integrated lessons and to understand how to
create optimal learning experiences. It also encourages educators to use technology by providing
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 22

a framework to distinguish which lessons enhance learning (S and A) and which lessons
transform learning (M and R) for students (Romrell, Kidder, & Wood, 2014). By applying this
four-level framework, teachers are better able to understand how to select, use, and evaluate
technology in the classroom. Dr. Reuben Puentedura, the creator of the SAMR model, and
Pearson et al. (2005) state that technology integration using this framework leads to better
academic results. Opportunities for ongoing professional development can have a direct impact
on increasing teachers’ knowledge and skill to integrate technology into the classroom learning
environment.
Embedded Coaching

The rate of change in technology is rapid and consistent so teachers must receive ongoing
and various types of support to keep pace with the changes. Niederhauser and Wessling (2011)
state that teachers must be seen as learners and with many different types of teachers, it is
essential to have individualized and ongoing support because many teachers will not be able to
keep pace unless they are provided with alternative types of professional development.
According to Mouza (2003) and Fullan (1991), one reason that professional development efforts
fail is due to the lack of follow up to support and address the individual needs and concerns of
teachers. In-class coaching provides teachers support as they attempt to develop and implement
new instructional practices (Mouza, 2003). One way to do this is to conduct activities at the
school site and bring opportunities of support to the classroom through hands-on professional
development aligned to curriculum goals (Mouza, 2003). Teachers must receive in-class
coaching within their classroom which provides support and scaffolding as they attempt to
implement new instructional practices through the integration of technology.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 23

Administrative Support

Researchers have found that the support of District and site-based administration is
essential to successful implementation of technology in classrooms. Based on a case study of
nine school sites, one study found that the deciding factor in successful implementation of
technology was a school-wide approach to using technology and the support of site
administration (Means, Olson, & Singh, 1995). Professional development efforts are influenced
by the way in which school administrators support or inhibit teacher learning (Mouza, 2003). In
addition, empirical research suggests that improvements and innovations with technology are
more likely to occur when both the School District and the teachers worked collaboratively in
adopting new innovations (Mouza, 2003). Teachers are more willing to invest time and energy
when they feel supported, and it is imperative that District organization and site administrators
support the teachers by providing them opportunities for professional learning.
Conclusion
Teachers must have the knowledge, motivation, and organizational structures to
successfully implement technology in the classroom to transform student learning and prepare
students to be college and career ready. This can be achieved through sustained professional
development, in-class coaching, motivation, and organizational support.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences

Knowledge and Skills
According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge and skill enhancement are required for
job performance. Knowledge provides stakeholders with the skill to do something effectively
and is the storehouse of experience (Clark & Estes, 2008). Professional training and in-class
coaching are required as well as guided practice and corrective feedback, resulting in high
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 24

impact learning and the ability to transfer the knowledge into instructional practices (Clark &
Estes, 2008). It is essential to identify each teacher’s knowledge and skill to provide the
educational opportunity to acquire conceptual, procedural, and strategic knowledge to understand
the benefit that newly acquired skills can have on learning (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Four types of the knowledge dimensions are important when evaluating any knowledge
gap. These knowledge types are factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge allows the
individual to use the interrelationship of their foundational knowledge while procedural
knowledge is knowing how to do something and pertains to the knowledge that a teacher has
about how to perform a skill (Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness and
knowledge of one’s own cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). Metacognitive awareness is the ability
that a person has to reflect upon his or her own knowledge and be cognizant of what he or she
knows as well as what he or she does not know.
Integrating technology in a one-to-one learning environment. Teachers must have the
procedural knowledge to be able to integrate technology in a one-to-one learning environment to
meet the needs of each student. As technology continues to expand in public education,
stakeholders most likely possess technology devices for students in the classroom; however, that
does not mean that teachers know how to teach using the technology (Zhao & Bryant, 2006).
According to McDonald (2014), professional development is one of the most effective
means of improving teacher procedural knowledge because they increase knowledge and skills.
Moreover, it enhances teacher understanding by building upon previous learning opportunities
(McDonald, 2014). In-class coaching provides scaffolding and helps stakeholders to develop
awareness, reflect, and receive a differentiated approach to transfer learning to successfully
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 25

execute the task (Stover, Kissel, Haag, & Shoniker, 2011; Nokes, 2009; Stajkovic & Luthans,
1998). These learning experiences create opportunities for teachers to apply their new
knowledge into daily instruction activities with their students. For example, by understanding
Puentedura’s SAMR model (2009), teachers use this hierarchical model to identify the quality of
technology use in instruction and what tier they are integrating technology into their lesson.
Studies show that most educators implement technology at the substitution level, the most basic
level, followed by the next level, known as augmentation, which is substitution, but with
functional improvements (Romwell, Kidder, & Wood, 2014). By understanding this model,
teachers can integrate technology at the two highest classifications. The first one is modification,
which requires the learning activity to be redesigned, and the second one is redefinition, which
incorporates tasks that could not be completed without the technology devices.
Teachers who have attended the Technology Academy professional development training
sessions should be able to significantly enhance and transform the quality of education via
technology by incorporating learning opportunities such as digital storytelling, simulations,
personalized learning, virtual reality, and computer adaptive learning. Furthermore, as teachers
become more comfortable with technology, they begin transferring this learning into other
curricular areas; therefore, more effectively applying it to their instructional practices (Nokes,
2009; Matzen, 2007). According to Taatgen (2013), transfer is defined by the ability to take
task-specific knowledge and use it for another semantically similar task.
To have an effective one-to-one learning environment, educators must first have the
conceptual knowledge to know what it means to integrate technology in the classroom. Next
educators must have procedural knowledge to understand how to integrate technology into a
classroom environment so that they can effectively transfer the learned skills to their
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 26

instructional practices, to feel more self-efficacious, and to build intrinsic motivation to continue
developing their knowledge and skill set (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Teacher awareness of effectiveness. Metacognition can be defined as knowing about
one’s thinking, including internal awareness as a learner (Mayer, 2011). Stakeholders who can
reflect on the knowledge, skills and learning processes are more likely to reach their goals
(Mayer, 2011). Stakeholders need to know how to reflect on their own effectiveness while
integrating technology in a one-to-one learning environment. By reflecting on their experiences,
stakeholders can better understand themselves and their environment, which leads to higher
levels of metacognitive awareness (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). According to Mayer (2011),
metacognition must incorporate two components; the awareness of knowing what is being
learned and having the control to know how to monitor one’s learning.
Developing metacognition is the key to improving learning (Zohar & Dori, 2012). When
stakeholders reflect on what they have learned, they develop a sense of personal self-efficacy
that will most likely help to sustain efforts even when outcomes are uncertain or unknown
(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Learning is improved through reflection and ongoing thinking by
linking prior knowledge to create a more complex and complete understanding. Stakeholders
must connect ideas and prior knowledge to what they have learned, resulting in the ability to
transfer information into long-term storage that increases effectiveness, engagement, and self-
efficacy, leading to better outcomes and more successful implementation (Stajkovic & Luthans,
1998). Having metacognitive knowledge is essential, but stakeholders must also implement
metacognitive strategies as they learn so that they can better apply learned concepts to their
teaching practices (Mayer, 2011).
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 27

Stakeholders who receive coaching can benefit from the support and from metacognition
to better acknowledge the realities of their classroom practice to make future decisions about
their instruction to increase student achievement (Peterson, Taylor, Burnham, & Schock, 2009).
Stakeholders are more effective when they receive ongoing classroom coaching to build teacher
capacity and to support the metacognitive knowledge to understand what they know and what
they still need to learn. According to Peterson, Taylor, Burnham, and Schock (2009),
stakeholders who optimize the skills and knowledge of a coach can increase knowledge, skills,
and self-efficacy to bring about change in instruction and pedagogy, leading to increased student
achievement and increased feelings of self-efficacy. From these supports, participants are more
likely to reflect on their knowledge and feel more self-efficacious when integrating technology
into the classroom environment.
Motivation
Motivation inspires, innovates, and guides stakeholders in determining how much effort
to exert on a task (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation results from experiences and beliefs about
oneself and the prospect of being effective (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Motivation and
effectiveness are the root motive in behavior and a critical factor in the success of the stakeholder
goal because people desire to be effective in life. There are three types of motivational processes
that affect a work environment and can positively or negatively affect achievement,
effectiveness, and success. These are active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Active choice is when a person decides to participate in an activity, persistence is
the commitment to pursue an activity, and effort is the amount of mental effort put forth to learn
new knowledge (Rueda, 2011).
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 28

While there are numerous motivational theories, this study will focus on self-efficacy
theory. One goal that is essential to the stakeholders’ success in achieving their goal is believing
that they are capable of effectively integrating one-to-one computing in the classroom.
According to Pajares (1997), the beliefs about one’s self-efficacy can enhance human
accomplishment and feelings of success.
Self-efficacy theory. People’s belief about whether they possess the skills necessary to
succeed affects the commitment, the quality, and the quantity of mental effort invested in their
work (Clark & Estes, 2008). Self-efficacy is the belief a person holds about his/her capability to
learn or perform at a particular level; often considered self-perceptions (Bandura, 2000; Pajares,
2006). Individuals must believe that what they do can produce the outcome they desire to have;
if not, individuals are less likely to perform. There is a significant relationship between self-
efficacy and job performance (Bandura, 2000; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). In a meta-analysis of
over 114 empirical studies, results showed a positive correlation between self-efficacy and work-
related performance, which can be statistically transformed into a 28% gain in performance
versus popular interventions such as goal setting or behavior modifications (Stajkovic &
Luthans, 1998).
People who believe they are capable and effective will achieve more than those who
doubt their abilities (Bandura, 2000). Self-efficacy beliefs can be formed by mastery experience,
social persuasions, and physiological reactions. When a person is successful, it raises his/her
self-efficacy; however, if a person feels that he/she has failed, this will lower his/her self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006). In addition, self-efficacy is both a personal and social construct. According to
Clark and Estes (2008), people are motivated when they are working with people or in great
work environments. Moreover, individuals with higher self-efficacy believe in their abilities are
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 29

more motivated to engage in a task, and persist more than a person who doubts his or her ability
(Rueda, 2011).
Teacher self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is both a personal and collective belief.
Stakeholders with a strong sense of self-efficacy focus their time and energy on analyzing and
resolving problems compared to people with low self-efficacy who tend to doubt their skills and
abilities (Coutinho & Neuman, 2008). When stakeholders believe they can be successful in their
ability to implement one-to-one learning in the classroom, they feel more self-efficacious and are
more likely to continue integrating one-to-one computing into their daily teaching practices. By
cultivating a system of supports and fostering the self-efficacy, teachers will feel confident in
their ability to implement one-to-one computing in the classroom environment. Success is
dependent on the positive self-efficacy beliefs and the ability to achieve the desired outcomes
(Bandura 2000; Nokes, 2009).
In addition, the collective group of teachers must also believe in their capacity to attain
goals and accomplish desired tasks (Pajares, 2006). The participants are more successful when
they have the opportunity to work with coaches, colleagues, and other educators across the
school district collaborating and communicating about effective ways to integrate one-to-one
learning. Stakeholders need ongoing opportunities to communicate and collaborate during
professional developments and be part of a professional learning network. This can lead to
increased productivity and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Professional development for teachers serves as a vehicle for changing teacher practice
and improving student achievement (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Through professional
learning, stakeholders feel efficacious in their practice because of the increase in capacity, which
ultimately leads to improving student learning. As stakeholders experience increased student
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 30

outcomes, they are more likely to continue in the integration of one-to-one learning in the
classroom. Consequently, stakeholders who feel self-efficacious are more focused on investing
effort in problem-solving and less time worrying about the possibility of failure (Wood &
Bandura, 1989).
Organizational Influences
Organizational culture is one of the foundational components crucial to creating an
environment where employees feel engaged, onboard, and valued (Berger, 2014). Culture is a
way to describe core values, goals, beliefs, and processes learned over time (Clark & Estes,
2008). Simultaneously, culture can be described as the way to understand a person’s core
knowledge and motivational patterns (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational culture affects all
facets of the organization and attempts to improve performance. Successful performance in an
organization depends on the specific organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Culture includes beliefs and information about the importance of individual initiative as
well as the value of organizational processes and collaboration (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research
shows that stakeholders who feel more informed, involved, and valued perform better than those
who do not feel to be an integral part of the organization (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). In
addition, culture is another way to describe a person’s core knowledge and motivational patterns
(Clark & Estes, 2008). While cultural models characterize organizations, they are also made up
of cultural settings, which include organizational policies and practices (Rueda, 2011).
Cultural Model Influences. Organizations develop different cultures over time (Clark
& Estes, 2008). Cultural models help shape the way that the organization is structured (Rueda,
2011). These cultural models include values, policies, trust, and practices. The organization’s
goal at Bentley School District is to build a culture of support for certificated and classified staff
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 31

to improve student learning and outcomes for every child. However, there is one apparent
cultural model influence that affects the cultural organization which is the organization needs to
provide ongoing professional development to teachers on how to integrate one-to-one computing
into the learning environment. According to Lawless and Pellegrino (2007), multiple reports
depict that teacher professional development are inadequate and deficient due to the insufficient
number of hours offered by the school district. To build an organization that is collectively
focused on the overall mission, ensuring college and career readiness which includes the one-to-
one computing initiative, the District must continue to provide the training and support. Clark
and Estes (2008) state that by supporting the employees within an organization, the culture can
be positively influenced and lead to higher success.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that to create an atmosphere where teachers feel supported,
the organization must provide the proper levels of knowledge, skills, and support for staff.
Research shows that one way to improve the culture and productivity of the organization is
through support and communication (Berger, 2014). According to Clark and Estes (2008), clear
communication and ongoing support increase trust and help the stakeholders to improve
performance as well as increase flexibility to accommodate unexpected events. The higher the
levels of support, the more commitment stakeholders will put forth to effectively implement
change and increase performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, it is essential to align the
structure and the processes with the organization’s goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore, the
organization must be committed to creating a supportive culture for teachers. The organization
needs to continue to provide ongoing support and training to teachers aligned to the one-to-one
computing initiative that the District implemented three years ago.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 32

Cultural Setting Influences. According to Tharp and Gallimore (1988), cultural setting
can be defined as two or more people who come together over time to accomplish something.
The cultural setting is specific to work settings within the organization such as classrooms,
meeting places, and site and district offices (Clark & Estes, 2008). Moreover, cultural settings
can be seen as the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the daily routines (Clark & Estes,
2008). In Bentley School District, there is one cultural setting that influences and affects the
stakeholder goal, which is the District needs to continue to support and sustain the one-to-one
computing initiative by continuing to fund the necessary technology equipment in classrooms.
To support the cultural setting and create an atmosphere where teachers feel supported,
organizations must provide the resources that teachers need (Clark & Estes, 2008). Technology
has resulted in a pedagogical shift among many K-12 public schools and is often the medium that
is used to transform teachers’ instructional practices when the resources are provided (Matzen &
Edmunds, 2007). The District must continue to support and sustain the one-to-one computing
initiative by continuing to fund the necessary technology equipment in classrooms. Research
suggests that when there is a lack of organizational resources, it may prevent stakeholders from
achieving their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
In addition, the District must communicate with classroom teachers and staff that the
program will be sustained over time. Over the past decade, the federal government has invested
in numerous initiatives to assure that schools keep up with the advancements in technology
(Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). Furthermore, technology related standards have been developed
by the National Education Technology Standards and the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE) to highlight the importance of technology in educational organizations
nationwide and to provide common standards for both educators and students to be used as a
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 33

roadmap for innovative learning. According to the US Department of Education (2000), one of
the fundamental reasons schools spend time and money on integrating technology is to improve
academic achievement for future success. Therefore, the organization must support, sustain, and
fund the technology equipment necessary for teachers to continue implementing the District’s
one-to-one computing initiative.
Table 2 below shows the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that
were theorized to enable teachers to meet their goal of integrating one-to-one computing in the
classroom.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 34

Table 2
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Influences

Procedural

Teachers need to know how to integrate one-
to-one computing in the learning environment.
Metacognitive

Teachers need to know how to reflect on their
effectiveness in integrating one-to-one
computing in their classroom.
Motivational Influences

Self- Efficacy

Teachers need to believe that they are capable
of effectively integrating one-to-one
computing in the classroom learning
environment.
Organizational Influences

Cultural Model Influence 1/District:

The organization needs to provide ongoing
professional development to teachers on how
to integrate one-to-one computing into the
learning environment.
Cultural Setting Influence 1/District:

The organization needs to continue to support
and sustain the one-to-one computing initiative
by continuing to fund the necessary
technology equipment in classrooms.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 35

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework can be defined as a system of concepts, assumptions, beliefs,
and theories that support and inform research (Maxwell, 2013). Simultaneously, according to
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a conceptual framework is the underlying structure or frame and is
derived from the orientation that a person brings to their study. To ensure that all facets of the
study are understood, a conceptual framework guides the way that the study is arranged.
Maxwell (2013), stated that the conceptual framework guides the researcher on what he/she
plans to investigate and helps the researcher assess and refine goals, develop research questions,
justify the research, and identify potential validity threats. In this study, each component in the
conceptual framework interacted with one another from the overall organization, the school
district, to the stakeholders, the teachers, and finally, to the organization’s goal. This framework
interconnected each component of the Clark and Estes KMO model so that they were not
isolated from each other, but instead, amalgamated and unified. Moreover, according to
Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework is constructed from multiple resources, and the
structure is built and can often lead the researcher to a more comprehensive and well-supported
theory. See the Conceptual Framework for this study in Figure 1.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 36

Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework based on the Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model (2002).
As seen in Figure 1, the District was theorized to be the foundation of the organization
that comprised of the cultural settings and the cultural models. This was represented by a large
circle around the District. Within that circle, was the cultural model of Bentley School District
Teachers

Procedural Knowledge- Teachers need to know how to integrate one-
to-one computing in the learning environment.

Metacognition- Teachers need to know how to reflect on their
effectiveness in integrating one-to-one computing in their classroom.

Self- Efficacy- Teachers need to believe that they are capable of
effectively integrating one-to-one computing in the classroom learning
environment.
District
Cultural Model - The organization needs to provide ongoing
professional development to teachers on how to integrate one-to-
one computing into the learning environment.
Cultural Setting -The organization needs to continue to support
and sustain the one-to-one computing initiative by continuing to
fund the necessary technology equipment in the classrooms.

Stakeholder Goal

By June 2018, 100% of teachers in cohort two will integrate
one-to-one computing a minimum of 4 days per week in at
least one core subject and thus transfer the content from the
professional development training sessions into classroom
instruction.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 37

which referred to the general culture within the organization (Berger, 2014). The assumed
organizational influences included both the cultural settings and the cultural models of the
District as it related to the mission and vision of the stakeholders. Within that large circle was a
smaller circle representing the key stakeholder group, the teachers, who completed their second
year of the Technology Academy and were focusing on increasing their procedural and
metacognitive knowledge and skills as it related to integrating a one-to-one classroom
environment. This procedural and metacognitive knowledge was thought to be essential to
achieving the goal of integrating a one-to-one classroom environment through participation in
the Technology Academy. Simultaneously, inside that circle, an arrow going in both directions
support the ongoing and supportive relationship between Bentley School District and the
teachers. Subsequently, an arrow leaving the circle from the stakeholder group extends past the
circle that represents the stakeholder goal. Together, the District and the teachers coalesced
together to produce the stakeholder goal, the organizational goal, and ultimately student success.
It was theorized in this study that as teachers increase their procedural knowledge, they
also increase their motivation through feelings of self-efficacy as they successfully integrate a
one-to-one classroom learning environment. Motivation increases when knowledge increases
leading to the likelihood that teachers will continue to further advance their skill through
professional development and training. Based on the data, I believe that the teachers perceived
an increase in their procedural knowledge and their feelings of self-efficacy, but I would be
interested to follow up with them in two to three years after exiting the Technology Academy, to
see if they continue to have these same perceptions. This professional development and training
provided teachers the opportunities to reflect on their abilities. Moreover, it was thought that the
more time that the teachers use metacognition to reflect on their learning and identify areas of
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 38

strength and additional areas of need, the more each teacher would take ownership of their
learning. However, it is the organizational responsibility to continue to support the professional
development opportunities for teachers. The District and the teachers who had completed the
second year of the Technology Academy were the key stakeholders to help the organization
achieve its goal of one-to-one learning environments in kindergarten through eighth grade
classrooms. Together, the teachers’ knowledge and motivation were thought to interact with the
District’s organizational context to produce the goal of integrating a one-to-one learning
environment through the Technology Academy.
In conclusion, the District and the stakeholder group were interrelated and unified,
focusing on the overall goal of the organization, which was 100% of teachers participating in the
Technology Academy. The concentric circles clarified the relationship between the District and
the stakeholder group as they interacted within the organizational context to ensure the goal of
integrating a one-to-one learning environment. Students who learned in a one-to-one classroom
were more likely to be prepared with the technology skills that were essential for post-secondary
and the workforce. By 2020, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017), over 77%
of jobs in the United States will require some level of technology skill. It was assumed that
teachers who participated in the Technology Academy were more likely to understand how to
effectively integrate one-to-one computing in their classroom learning environment, resulting in
students who were more prepared for post-secondary education and the workplace. Based on my
data collection and analysis, the conceptual framework stated that teachers must know how to
integrate technology in the classroom, but overall, the data I was able to gather only provided
insight into teachers’ perception of their knowledge, which is something I would revise in my
conceptual framework based on my findings. However, based on the literature review, I still
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 39

believe that teachers must have the procedural knowledge to know how to integrate one-to-one
computing in the classroom, though more empirical evidence would be necessary to corroborate
the literature. In addition, the conceptual framework stated that teachers needed to know how to
reflect on their effectiveness integrating one-to-one computing. However, based on my data
analysis, I would revise this metacognitive influence to state that teachers need scaffolds to learn
how to reflect on their effectiveness integrating one-to-one computing because it was challenging
to analyze how well each teacher reflected and to what degree they used metacognition. Finally,
the conceptual framework stated that teachers need to believe they are capable of effectively
integrating one-to-one computing in the classroom. After data collection and analysis, this
influence is consistent with my findings, but the feelings of self-efficacy presented differently
than expected because it was more that they teachers felt confident and capable helping other
teachers that specifically stating that they had feeling of self-efficacy. Based on the findings, the
cultural model and setting remain an essential part of the conceptual framework as does the
stakeholder goal, which helps to ensure the organization continues to make strides towards
preparing students with college and career readiness skills.
Participating Stakeholders Sampling and Recruitment

The stakeholder group selected for this study were teachers who have completed their
second year of the Technology Academy. There were over 60 teachers who embarked on a two-
year journey that involved summer training, professional development days up to four times per
year, in-class coaching a minimum of two times per month, and quarterly self-reflections.
Teachers, both male and females, who participated in the Technology Academy had between
five and thirty years of teaching experience. The majority of teachers in the Academy were
elementary teachers working in kindergarten through sixth-grade, but there were also about a
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 40

dozen middle school teachers. Teachers in the Academy taught at different schools throughout
Bentley School District, many with vastly different socioeconomic student populations. For the
purposes of sampling, the teachers selected for this study were upper elementary teachers who
taught fourth, fifth, or sixth-grade, who attended over 90% of the professional development
sessions over the past two years, participated in over 90% of the in-class coaching sessions, and
completed quarterly reflections.
Each teacher who participated in the Technology Academy submitted an interest
application to participate and had to be accepted into the cohort. In addition, teachers interested
in participating in the Technology Academy for the second year had to reapply. Out of the 60
teachers who were accepted into the second year of the Technology Academy, 22 teachers taught
kindergarten, first, second or third-grade and 13 teachers taught seventh or eighth grade.
Twenty-five teachers taught fourth, fifth, or sixth-grade. My focus was on fourth, fifth, and
sixth-grade because there were more opportunities to observe the pedagogical changes in the
classroom and the integration of technology in the various core subjects in an upper elementary
classroom as compared to a primary classroom. In addition, students in an upper elementary
classroom were more self-sufficient, there was a broader variety of technology skills that needed
to be taught based on the Common Core State Standards Technology Scope and Sequence
(2010), and there was alignment between the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the
technological skills taught in those grades. Lastly, there were not enough middle school
participants to validate a research study. I selected three of the 25 upper elementary teachers for
my study based on the criteria above, which included a minimum of 90% attendance at the
professional development training sessions, a minimum of 90% participation during the in-class
coaching sessions, and quarterly reflections. Attendance forms from professional developments
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 41

and in-class coaching were reviewed to determine how many fourth, fifth and sixth-grade
teachers met these criteria. There were only six teachers who met all of these requirements.
Furthermore, this was a selective group of teachers because each one had to apply to
participate in the Technology Academy; however, I did want some variation in the selection of
these six teachers based on their teaching experience and the number of years they have taught.
Therefore, to ensure maximum variation, I attempted to select one teacher who taught between 3-
10 years, one teacher who had taught for more than 10 years but less than 20 years, and one
teacher who taught for over 20 years but less than 30 years. There was only one teacher who met
all of the criteria and taught between 3-10 years, but she had recently been promoted to a
Technology Coach, so she was not able to participate in the study. The five remaining teachers
who met the criteria were reviewed; two taught between 11-20 years and three taught between
21-30 years. So, I randomly selected one of the two teachers who taught between 11-20 years
and then two of the three teachers who taught between 21-30 years; thus, coming up with my
sample group. I selected two teachers with 21-30 years of experience because I was interested in
observing how their veteran teaching practicing could change when training and in-class support
were offered to them.
Observation Sampling Strategy and Rationale
To understand how the Technology Academy shaped teaching and learning in the
classroom as well as how teachers integrate a one-to-one learning environment, a qualitative
approach using observations was conducted. Based on the conceptual framework and the
research questions, teachers who completed two years of the Technology Academy should have
the procedural knowledge to know how to integrate technology into core subject curriculum. As
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 42

such, for this study, the classroom instruction of the teachers sampled for this study made up the
settings for observation.
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The day/time chosen for the observations were when the participating upper
elementary teacher was teaching Language Arts, Math, History, or Science, or a
combination of them.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The most appropriate sampling method in qualitative research is purposeful sampling
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Purposeful sampling allows the researcher to examine a specific
population which helps to provide a more accurate understanding of the findings (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). For this study, a qualitative approach using interviews was conducted with three
of the 6 fourth through sixth-grade teachers who met all of the criteria and who completed their
second year in the Technology Academy. This subset of teachers was unique because they
committed to two years of professional development and in-class coaching, and should thus be
well positioned to integrate technology into their classroom. By selecting them for participation
in this study, I was able to examine the Technology Academy’s ability to prepare and support
teachers to integrate one-to-one computing into their learning environment.

Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Below is the criterion for interview participants.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 43

Criterion 1. Upper elementary teachers in grades four through six, who completed the
second year of the Technology Academy and met all of the criteria which included a
minimum of 90% attendance at the professional development training sessions and a
minimum of 90% participation during the in-class coaching sessions.
Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
The study used a qualitative research design to examine how teachers were integrating
one-to-one computing into their daily instruction after receiving ongoing professional
development and coaching support. Qualitative research is defined as the study of things in their
natural setting with a goal of attempting to make sense or interpret information, which can be
shared out and understood (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, a qualitative approach
focuses on understanding the meaning, rely on more open-ended questions, and focus on a small
set of participants’ perceptions and actions through interviews and observations in the
participant’s natural setting (Creswell, 2014). For the qualitative data collection and
instrumentation, I conducted observations and face-to-face interviews, with a follow-up phone
call if necessary as outlined in my protocol. Following IRB approval, an introductory letter was
sent via text and email to the potential teacher participants who met the criteria above. If the
teachers agreed to participate in the study, they would be provided with an information sheet to
read that reviewed the protocols for the observation and the interview and provided information
about the study and their specific involvement in it, such as time necessary for the two classroom
observations and the face-to-face, audio-recorded interview. Following that, the teachers
acknowledged that they were volunteering to participate in the study.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 44

I entered the field after I received USC Instructional Review Board Approval. I began to
set up participant observation dates and times as well as interview dates and times with each
teacher.
Observations
Observations were conducted prior to face-to-face interviews so that clarification and
follow-up questions could be part of the interview process. Observations provided specific
incidents, actions, and behaviors that can be used as reference points for subsequent interviews
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, observational data is more authentic and allows a
researcher to have a first-hand encounter with the phenomenon of interest (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Each of the three participants was observed for four hours over a period of two days so
that the researcher could observe the participant teaching a minimum of one core subject during
each observation. During the data collection stage, I was note-taking to observe what the teacher
and the students were doing during each observation. Note-taking helped me concentrate on
specific events, behaviors, and people to focus on during my observations (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I assumed the role of the complete observer, completely exposed in the environment
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My study was overt because I was visible to the teacher and students
in the natural environment. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) noted that the successful outcome of an
observation is well-detailed, accurate, and contain extensive field notes.
Due to time constraints of the researcher, each teacher observation was two hours long,
for a total of four hours, and it took place over two days. I was able to observe each class for two
sessions at two-hours each. There were minimal interruptions during the observations except for
recess in one classroom. Each observation was scheduled between the researcher and the
participant. In-depth field notes were taken during the classroom observations. Following each
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 45

observation, I used the SAMR model as a framework to determine the level of technology
integration and to look for connections and consistencies among each teacher’s level of
technology integration. Then, I wrote up my field notes using a password protected computer
and ensured that the confidential data files were stored in a secured word processing program.
The conceptual framework guided the observational note-taking and the observational
checklist, being the catalyst to ensuring that the focus remained on the detailed activities,
behaviors, and actions of the participant. Based on my Observation Protocol for Technology
Integration (See Appendix A), the focus during the observations were on the classroom
instruction during a core subject lesson, the students’ use of technology, the classroom
environment, and how they related back to the fourth through sixth-grade teachers’ knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), observations in conjunction with interviews
can provide additional descriptive data by seeing firsthand rather than relying solely on the
participant’s interviews. It is important that a qualitative researcher use strategies to ensure
reliability, known as triangulation. Triangulation can be defined as using different methods as a
system of checks and balances, as a method to reduce bias and as a way to gain a viable
understanding of the research I was investigating (Maxwell, 2013). Observations in this study
ensured that I saw teachers’ practice, rather than just asking about their practice because as
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasized, observations substantiate the data and increase validity.
Maxwell (2013) stresses no one should rely solely upon interviews for data. Therefore, my
observations helped me to gather detailed descriptions of activities, behaviors, situations, and
actions which enabled me to draw inferences that were unable to be obtained in interviews
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013). Now that I have completed the study, I think that
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 46

the four-hour observations provided first-hand experience to see how technology was being
integrated in the classroom.
Interviews
The face-to-face interviews took place after the in-class observations because interview
questions were often anchored to what was observed. Interviews provide the researcher with
direct experiences and quotations about participants’ knowledge, experiences, opinions, and
feelings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patton (2002) states that we interview people to determine
the knowledge and information that we are not able to observe. Qualitative interviewing
provides the researcher with the opportunity to understand the participant’s perspective (Patton,
2002). For my interviews, I followed the general interview guide approach which involved a list
of questions to be asked throughout the interview (Patton, 2002). This approach included topics
with a series of questions, but with the freedom to probe if needed and allowed the researcher to
establish a conversation style interview. The face-to-face interviews assisted me in investigating
how teachers built procedural knowledge, metacognition, and self-efficacy.
An interview was set up individually between each participant and me. Each interview
was scheduled for sixty minutes, was audio recorded with the participant’s permission, and used
the interview protocol guidelines. The purpose of the interviews was to provide a more
comprehensive understanding of how the professional development and the in-class coaching
increased procedural knowledge, metacognition, and feelings of self-efficacy when integrating
one-to-one computing in the classroom. The conceptual framework served as the guide to the
interview questions being asked of each participant.
I developed questions that drew upon Patton’s 6 types of interview questions and used a
semi-structured approach to ensure that I gained a full understanding of the teacher’s
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 47

perspectives and knowledge (Patton, 2002). Due to the limited amount of time to interview each
participant, the semi-structured approach involved set questions, but there was flexibility for
follow-up questions and more probing questions if needed. (Patton, 2002; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). There were 25 interview questions in the interview protocol that focused on
understanding my research questions including the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that were the focus of the study (see Appendix A).
For each interview, I met the participant in a quiet location and reviewed the interview
information protocol sheet prior to starting the interview. I placed a digital recorder on the table,
had a hard copy of the questions, and asked each participant if he/she had any questions before
starting. The interview questions focused on gathering information based on the fourth through
sixth-grade teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. I sat down with
each participant in her classroom for the interview; many of the questions included multiple parts
to ensure that the research questions and the conceptual framework were addressed. The benefit
of an interview was that it allowed each individual to respond in a safe environment that was free
of judgment, and it helped the researcher to follow up on the classroom observations during the
interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The three participants answered each of the questions.
Interviewee One (Meredith, a pseudonym) was quite nervous when we began, but she quickly
became more comfortable after the first few generic questions. Interviewee Two (Bailey, a
pseudonym) responded to each of the interview questions, providing multiple examples of how
the technology integrated into the class. Lastly, Interviewee Three (Kelly, a pseudonym)
engaged in the questions as if we were in a dialogue, using examples from the observation lesson
to respond to many of the questions. All of the interviewees were available for follow up
questions, but no follow up was needed. Even though I set aside 60-minutes aside for each
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 48

teachers’ interview, Meredith’s interview lasted approximately 40 minutes, Bailey’s interview
lasted 46 minutes, and Kelly’s interview lasted 49 minutes. In total, the three interviews lasted
for 130 minutes or one-hour fifteen minutes.
Data Analysis
Data analysis began during data collection as I completed the observations, reflective
notes, detailed summaries, and interviews. Following each of the two observations, I left the
room and completed detailed summary notes and used the SAMR model as a framework to
evaluate the level of technology integration. I then transcribed my notes from each observation
and interview and uploaded them into Atlas.ti, a computer program known to support in
qualitative coding and research using analytic coding. Next, I used my conceptual framework
and the concepts discussed in the literature review as a first pass at looking at and thinking about
the data. I coded the observational and interview data incorporating axial coding to identify
important words and phrases as well as a priori codes that were already of interest prior to my
research, searching for themes that appeared in both sets of data. While I used the concepts from
my conceptual framework to guide my initial analysis (knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences), I stayed open to emergent themes and developed empirical codes
derived from reading through the data such as how the change in personnel among the
technology coaches was a concern, and how each teacher felt capable enough to support another
teacher at her school site. Atlas.ti helped me to systematically code my data, develop a cohesive
system to extrapolate data, and explore my interviews and observations through various query
options.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 49

Findings
In this section, I present the findings of the research study, which are organized into
categories of influence (see Table 2): knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences
that emerged in relation to the research questions and the conceptual framework. Based on the
Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, the assumed knowledge influences included
procedural and metacognitive; the motivational influence included self-efficacy; the
organizational influences included the cultural model and cultural setting. The finding related to
the research questions were: 1) Teachers perceived that the formal professional development and
in-class coaching increased their procedural knowledge about how to integrate one-to-one
computing. Despite the original conceptual framework including procedural knowledge as an
assumed influence, actual findings on procedural knowledge were unfounded because there was
not sufficient data to make assertions about this kind of knowledge. Rather, the study did collect
self-reported data on perceived knowledge. The next findings related to the research question
were: 2) Teachers made an effort to use metacognitive strategies to reflect on how they are using
technology and integrating it in the classroom; and 3) Feelings of self-efficacy inspired teachers
in the Technology Academy to coach other teachers. The organizational influences intersected
and overlapped with the two research questions and appeared throughout the three findings. The
organizational findings included the need for the organization to provide resources, professional
development, and in-class coaching to support teachers as well as the need to create
sustainability with one-to-one computing by continuing to fund the initiative. First, I will present
the findings related to each research question related to the key concepts from the gap analysis
framework. Then I will show how the data support the finding and how it connects to my
conceptual framework.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 50

Finding 1: Teachers perceived that the formal professional development and in-class
coaching increased their knowledge for integrating one-to-one computing.
Organizational influences that support teachers’ knowledge. Before discussing the
findings related to the theorized knowledge influence, it’s important to set the organizational
context in which the teachers’ knowledge is embedded. In Bentley School District, the
organizational goal was to ensure college and career readiness for all students and to build a
culture of support to improve student learning and outcomes for every child. To support these
goals, the District developed a Technology Academy which provided teachers with professional
development, in-class technology coaching, and one-to-one devices. The purpose of the
Technology Academy was to help support the teachers in accomplishing the organization’s goal
to create a culture that leads to sustainable implementation. Organizational culture supports the
organization and attempts to improve performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). The US Department
of Education (2000) stated that one of the fundamental reasons schools spend time and money on
integrating technology is to improve academic achievement for future success. Similarly,
research says that one-to-one initiatives provide students equitable access to learning resources
(Varier, Dumke, Abrams, Conklin, Barnes, & Hoover, 2017).
Hughes (2005) stated that traditional professional development training sessions are
beneficial in supporting teacher learning, but when combined with follow-up classroom support,
are considered significantly more effective. In addition, Mouza (2005) states that teachers need
in-class coaching support to build confidence as they attempt to develop and implement new
instructional practices. Evidence from the qualitative data supports the finding that Bailey,
Meredith, and Kelly felt supported by the organization and perceived that the professional
development and in-class coaching increased their knowledge and skills.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 51

Interview data were used to better understand the teachers’ overall feelings regarding the
professional development, in-class coaching, and technology devices they received. Overall, all
of the teachers had positive things to say about the professional development. In Meredith’s
interview, she said, “I couldn't have done it without the professional development and the in-
class coaching.” This shows that Meredith valued the opportunity to have training and a
technology coach to support her in her classroom. Similarly, Kelly stated that the “technology
coaches were a huge support for us.” Based on this comment, it appears that Kelly felt supported
because she was able to have a district-funded coach working with her to attend to her individual
needs.
According to research, to create an atmosphere where teachers feel supported, they must
be provided with the proper levels of support to build knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). When I
interviewed Bailey about how the professional development and in-class coaching impacted her,
she responded, “I felt super supported. I’m appreciative of the support. I know that not
everybody may feel like I do, but I feel super supported.” In response, Bailey’s comment about
“not everybody may feel like I do,” it is likely that she believed her participation in the
Technology Academy afforded her more support and resources; whereas a teacher who decided
not to participate did not receive that same support or resources, such as the in-class coaching.
Research states that one way to improve the organizational culture and productivity is
through support and resources (Berger, 2014). Clark and Estes (2008) state that by supporting
the employees within an organization, the culture can be positively influenced and lead to higher
success. The interview and observation data showed that the teachers appreciated the District
provided one-to-one computing. During my six observations, the teachers utilized the one-to-
one devices over 90% of the time, showing a level of commitment to using technology available
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 52

to them. Meredith specifically said in her interview that she “appreciated having the one-to-one
computing.” She recognized the support that the District provided to her. In addition, Meredith
said, “A lot of districts do not have this, and I've seen just a huge difference in the way kids
think, and how much they can do when they have access to one-to-one.” According to Hughes
(2005), technology is considered a transformational tool that will change teacher instructional
practices, but teachers must feel supported in the process. It was clear that Meredith believed
that one-to-one computing was a transformational tool, and the District supported her by
providing the devices, something that other organizations may not support.
Formal Professional Development. In addition to general comments about the
professional development provided to them, the first finding in this study was that teachers
perceived that the formal professional development increased their procedural knowledge for
integrating one-to-one computing. During each interview, all three teachers self-reported having
more procedural knowledge for integrating one-to-one computing that two-years ago due to the
professional development opportunities and the in-class coaching support. This was based on
teacher perception as there were no pre-and post-knowledge assessments for teachers when they
completed the Technology and when they exited to determine an increase in procedural
knowledge.
Research says that one of the barriers to effectively implementing educational technology
is not having adequate professional development for teachers (Niederhauser & Wessling, 2011).
To understand teachers’ knowledge integrating one-to-one computing, it is important to provide
context about how teachers were supported in Bentley School District. Technology Coaches
supported the teachers’ use of classroom-based technology in three primary ways: 1) an
introductory summer training for all of the teachers participating in the Technology Academy; 2)
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 53

formal professional development days where groups of teachers from all content areas received
training on integrating technology in a one-to-one classroom; and 3) bi-monthly, in-class
coaching that was customized to the teachers’ needs. This last feature will be further discussed
below.
A report from the National Center for Educational Statistics (2009) indicated that
approximately 65% of public school teachers in the United States received less than eight hours
of training on how to use technology with their students. The data above is referenced to provide
a comparison model to the amount of training that Bentley teachers received as part of
Technology Academy. Throughout the two-year period, teachers received 84 hours of formal
professional development. This comparison data provides context to better understand how
much training that the organization provided to teachers on how to integrate one-to-one
computing in the learning environment.
After two years of ongoing professional development, fourth-grade teacher Kelly, fourth-
grade teacher Meredith, and sixth-grade teacher Bailey perceived that the formal professional
development increased their procedural knowledge for integrating one-to-one computing.
Interviews with all three teachers support the finding. In her interview, Kelly stated, “The
trainings changed my teaching dramatically. They taught me how to teach the students through
technology.” Meredith said that the professional development “helped me learn how to use
technology in the classroom and become more comfortable with new digital tools.” In addition,
Meredith said, “I learned how to use technology to differentiate, re-teach, and accelerate student
learning, something I did not know how to do before the Technology Academy.” In this
comment, Meredith is giving credit to the Technology Academy for some of the skills she
learned about how to use technology in her class. Also communicating positive perceptions,
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 54

Bailey described the professional development training as “Fabulous!” and said, “Now that I had
the training and know how to use the technology, I can’t imagine not using it with my students. I
use technology every day.” Bailey’s comment that she “can’t imagine not using it” points to a
shift in her perspective about technology in her practice. The shift in teaching practice is not
only in using specific technology but in the engagement and commitment to adapt as new
technology emerges. In other words, the knowledge skills are not specific to a platform or
program but rather, the shift is the knowledge of how to incorporate new technology in the first
place. With professional development and support, teachers can begin to see prototyping and
incorporating technology as part of the art of teaching (Brush, Glazewski, & Hew, 2008).
Moreover, according to the research, professional development is one of the most effective
means of improving teacher procedural knowledge because it increases knowledge and skills
(McDonald, 2014). Supported by the literature, the data gathered from Bentley District aligns
with the literature and supports the finding that teachers perceived that the formal professional
development increased knowledge for integrating one-to-one computing.
In-class coaching. In addition to the formal professional development, teachers
perceived that the in-class coaching increased their procedural knowledge for integrating one-to-
one computing. Research says that teachers must have opportunities to build their knowledge
and receive support that addresses their individual needs (Fullan, 1991). According to Mouza
(2003), teachers need professional development that is situated in the context of their classroom,
and one way to do this is to provide in-class coaching aligned to curriculum goals.
As a way to support teachers integrating one-to-one computing, in-class coaching was
provided for those who participated in the Technology Academy. Brush, Glazewski, and Hew
(2008) emphasized that the key to the effective use of technology rely heavily on the knowledge
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 55

of how to integrate technology with daily classroom procedures. Throughout the two-year
period, teachers received 24 hours of in-class coaching to support their individual needs. This
data is provided to show that the organization invested resources in providing in-class coaching
to teachers to support the integration of one-to-one computing in the classroom.
Data from interviews and observations supported the finding that the teachers perceived that the
in-class coaching increased their procedural knowledge for integrating one-to-one computing.
In her interview, Meredith described her experience with in-class coaching. She said:
It's definitely shaped my teaching. When the Technology Coach, Ms. L. was here, I felt
very supported. I learned everything. I would say the growth I had in those two years
helped me so much. It gave me so much support to see it ‘live’ in action.
Meredith described that the technology coach modeled ‘live’ lessons which helped her to
observe how technology could be integrated into the classroom. Furthermore, she said that the
in-class support helped to shape her teaching and helped her learn and grow during those two
years as a teacher. Therefore, it can be concluded that Meredith perceived that she increased her
knowledge through the in-class coaching to better know how to integrate one-to-one computing
in her classroom. To be clear, her knowledge is not limited to the software she worked with, but
her knowledge includes the process of incorporating new technology into her teaching practice
as she stated in her interview when she said, “I think I am really good at differentiating learning
with technology. I can help the kids that need extra support, and also extend the lesson and do
something different for other the kids that need it.” This experience and knowledge is a key
attribute to long-term shifts in teaching and learning.
The literature states that in-class coaching provides scaffolding to increase procedural
knowledge (Nokes, 2009). When I observed Meredith teaching in her classroom, her students
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 56

were completing a geometry project on Google Earth, a digital tool that renders satellite images
of Earth, to review lines, turns, and angles. Meredith stated that her coach, Ms. L., modeled this
digital tool for her during a social studies unit earlier in the school year. She said, “When Ms. L.
came in and showed the students and me a new tech tool, I would watch, learn, and think how to
integrate it into other lessons.” Based on Meredith’s statements, the scaffolding that she received
from the technology coached helped her learn how to use the tool, make connections on how it is
being integrated, and think about how to incorporate it in other content areas. Meredith also
stated that “the coaching really set me up to be successful.” This example indicated that at that
time, Meredith felt successful and that the coaching affected those feelings. Lastly, in her
interview, Meredith said that “the support from the in-class coaching made me more aware of
different ways to teach something.” While Meredith did not specifically state that the in-class
coaching increased her procedural knowledge, it can be concluded that she perceived the in-class
coaching increased her knowledge to know how to better integrate one-to-one computing in the
classroom.
Research states that coaches build procedural knowledge and teachers who optimize the
knowledge and skills of a coach increase their own knowledge and skills (Peterson, Taylor,
Burnham, & Schock, 2009). When I interviewed Bailey about her experience with in-class
coaching, she said,
Coaching was always perfect. In the early stages where you're learning, I'm looking at
the coach as an expert, and I want to know how to use the technology with my students.
Sometimes it was the coach teaching, and I'm literally taking notes. Other times, we're
co-teaching. It was always a successful thing.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 57

Bailey viewed her coach as an expert and felt that the in-class coaching support was “a
successful thing” because she received the individual help she needed. Based on the data from
Bailey’s interview, it can be concluded that Bailey perceived that the in-class coaching increased
her knowledge for integrating one-to-one computing.
In Kelly’s interview, too, she said, “My coach gave me ideas on how to use technology in
my classroom. He showed me how technology should be used and gave me other ideas that I
wouldn't have used before. It helped shape me as the teacher I am now.” Kelly’s interview
reflected that the support from her technology coach shaped her into the teacher she is now,
underscoring that she self-identified that the in-class coaching gave her new skills, ideas, and
knowledge of how to incorporate technology not only specific to her experience with her coach,
but also a broader knowledge of the steps of adoption of technology, which she can use in the
future. It could be inferred that the in-class coaching supported teachers by providing them with
ideas on how to integrate technology and not procedural knowledge. To be clear, none of the
teachers actually said that they increased their procedural knowledge. However, each of these
teachers used the phrases such as “set me up to be successful,” or “always a successful thing” or
“helped shape me as the teacher I am now,” which would indicate that each of these teachers
increased their procedural knowledge in some way. Therefore, it can be concluded that based on
the self-reported interview data, all of the teachers perceived that the in-class coaching increased
their procedural knowledge to know how to integrate one-to-one computing in the classroom.
To further support the literature that states ongoing coaching support is an important
factor when analyzing the influences of technology integration, the support from the technology
coach helped the teachers better understand how to use technology in the classroom. In other
words, teachers perceived that this in-class coaching helped to scaffold learning and increase
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 58

their procedural knowledge. During one observation, the technology coach, Mr. K., was
supporting sixth-grade teacher, Bailey. Based on self-reported information from Bailey, she and
Mr. K. communicated via email regarding the upcoming lesson which focused on Social Science
Content Standard WH6.8, analyzing the geographic, political, economic, religious, and social
structures of the early civilizations of Ancient Greece. Bailey wanted students to research and
document the voyages of Alexander the Great using a digital tool. To help accomplish this, Mr.
K. prepared a lesson to model a tool called Google Tour Builder, a resource that the teacher had
never used before. Mr. K. provided an overview of Google Tour Builder to the class, had the
students practice some of the different components the tool featured, and then had them begin
their assignment. During the modeling, the teacher took notes and observed student interactions.
It can be concluded that the Technology Coach structured the lesson to build Bailey’s knowledge
so that she knew how to continue when the coach left because when the coach left, the teacher
was able to continue the assignment versus having students stop the activity until the coach
returned the next time. Furthermore, Bailey emphasized, “It is helpful to have a coach come to
the classroom to share new resources and model lessons because it helps me learn how to
integrate the technology into my lessons.” Based on the literature and the data, the evidence
gathered through the study of Bentley District support the finding the teachers perceived that the
in-class coaching increased their procedural knowledge for integrating one-to-one computing.
Organizational challenges. Even though the teachers expressed positive perceptions of
the TA in helping them integrate technology into their practice and were glad they received the
technology from the District, there was concern about the sustainability of the one-to-one
computing initiative. When interviewed, Bailey shared, “I hope that every couple of years, the
District will buy us new devices so that we have the tools to keep the one-to-one initiative going
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 59

in the classroom.” Similarly, Kelly stated that she hoped the organization would continue to
support her by “keeping the technology up and working and keeping the technology coaches.”
Given that technology rapidly changes, the comments above regarding sustainability show a
concern that the technology will become obsolete in the coming years, and that the leadership
may not continue to support the initiative. This concern might be due to the high turnover of
district leadership in the past year which included the loss of the superintendent, an assistant
superintendent, an executive director of technology, and two technology coaches. It can be
concluded that the teachers felt supported by the organization regarding the one-to-one
computing, but they did have concerns to the outgoing years when the technology becomes
outdated and needs to be repurchased.
Another organizational challenge that was found in the data related to the technology
trainers. While the Technology Academy sought to meet the needs of the organization,
unexpected personnel challenges developed. During the interview, the teachers shared that there
had been a high turnover of coaches in the past eight months. To be specific, one teacher said
that “75% of the coaches had resigned from the organization and that there were some concerns
with the new coaches.” Specifically, Kelly stated that “with some of the newly hired coaches,
there's not as much knowledge.” She went on to say, “I think I know more right now than some
of the coaches.” Bailey shared, “Those initial coaches were all amazing, but it is different now.”
Due to the high level of turnover, this could be the reason for the responses from both Kelly and
Bailey, but it is not conclusive. Meredith stated that it is hard because “people were stepping
down from coaching and there is not as much passion as before.” This interview did not
specifically ask about the knowledge of the coaches, but it is interesting that each teacher
brought up the changes in personnel staffing regarding the technology coaches. And, when
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 60

Kelly stated that she had more knowledge than some of the coaches, it can be inferred that she
felt that she had a stronger understanding of technology integration than the coach, or that one of
the newly hired coaches lacked the knowledge to support teachers integrating one-to-one in the
classroom.
The research question, as well as the organizational influences, addressed the need to
support teachers’ knowledge in integrating one-to-one computing, and while teachers said the
professional development provided by the district provided such a support, the teachers were
concerned that the support would be short-lived and may not be sustained. It’s important to note
that, in this study, with the limited amount of interview and observational data, it was difficult to
ascertain the knowledge of the teachers, but rather the data I collected addressed the perceived
knowledge of the teachers. Furthermore, the interviews provided data regarding the teachers’
conceptual knowledge while the observations provided data about the teachers’ procedural
knowledge. Additionally, another challenge stated related to the turnover of the coaches, which
is related to the organizational influences in my conceptual framework. Personnel challenges
can occur in any organization; however, this was one concern that was shared by each of the
three interviewees. According to Clark and Estes (2008), it is important to analyze if there is a
gap between desired performance and actual performance. Due to the unforeseen loss of staff,
many of the teachers felt that this also affected the level of support they received surrounding
professional development and in-class coaching.
Finding 2: Teachers attempted to use metacognitive strategies to reflect on how they were
using technology and integrating it in the classroom.
The second finding was that teachers attempted to use metacognitive strategies to reflect
on how they were using technology and integrating it in the classroom. Research shows that
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 61

metacognitive knowledge can be characterized in three interrelated parts: a) knowledge of one’s
own cognition; b) knowledge about the specific cognitive demands of certain learning tasks, and
c) procedural knowledge of when, where, and how to use acquired strategies (Garner &
Alexander, 1989). Research shows that one way learners can develop metacognitive knowledge
is through peer interactions, discussions, and feedback (Choi, Land, & Turgeon, 2005).
In this study, the professional development and in-class coaching provided different
opportunities for peer interactions through discussions, collaborative group work, and feedback.
In-class coaching provided teachers with one-to-one interactions, feedback, and reflection.
Palincsar (1998) stated that one of the most widely-used forms of building metacognitive
knowledge is ongoing verbal interaction, and according to Choi, Land, and Turgeon (2005), once
learners can reflect and articulate gaps in knowledge, they begin to actively seek new
information to fill these gaps. It is not conclusive that the in-class coaching influenced
metacognitive knowledge, but having a technology coach on a consistent, bi-monthly basis
helped to support ongoing verbal interactions and opportunities for feedback among Bentley
teachers.
To support teachers while they were learning to integrate technology in the classroom,
Bentley School District provided professional development and in-class coaching as stated
above. Part of the training was to support knowledge influences, both procedural and
metacognitive. Through observations and interviews, it appeared that the teachers made efforts
to use different metacognitive strategies to reflect on how they were using technology and
integrating it in the classroom.
Research says that metacognitive knowledge increases a teacher’s ability to apply
learned concepts to their teaching practices (Mayer, 2011). In order to do this, teachers need to
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 62

understand how technology should be used and how it should not be used in the classroom.
Kelly stated in her interview, “I don't want students to just be on the computer like a babysitter.
It's really about what are they learning from it.” Kelly was cognitively aware that technology
can often be used as a babysitter. The SAMR model was one of the technology frameworks
taught in the Technology Academy. Based on Kelly’s comment, it can be posited that she was
able to identify the different levels of technology integration (SAMR), which identifies that
technology is often used as a substitute (S), similar to a babysitter, instead of a tool that redefines
(R) student learning (Puentedura, 2012). In addition, it appears that Dr. Puentedura’s model of
technology integration helped to guide Kelly’s reflective thinking enough to ask the question
“What are the students taking away from the lesson?” Furthermore, Kelly was able to reflect on
how her teaching and the integration of technology affected what the students were learning
which supports one of the three characterizations of metacognitive knowledge based on the
research by Garner and Alexander (1989). One interesting point to Kelly’s comments was that
she never stated how the SAMR model affected or impacted the way she reflected on integrating
one-to-one computing. Therefore, this might be one way that the professional development
could be improved given its focus on SAMR but the omission of this framework from the
interviews.
During my observation in Kelly’s classroom, I spoke to her about the current project her
students were working on and if she reflected on how technology is integrated into her
classroom. Kelly’s math project incorporated a neighborhood aerial map as a way to help
students understand how intersecting, parallel, and perpendicular lines are used in real-world
application. When I asked Kelly about this lesson, she stated, “When I create lessons for my
students, I ask myself, what are the students taking away from it? How are they able to use it in
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 63

their everyday life when they leave here?” Research states that metacognitive knowledge is
knowing how to apply learning and assess one’s performance (Desautel, 2009). Kelly shared
that she reflects on the lessons she creates asking herself how each lesson will support student
learning and how will they be able to use it in their everyday life. Identifying specific examples
of metacognitive knowledge is challenging during an observation, but Kelly self-reported that
she spends time reflecting on how her teaching, her lessons, and her integration of technology
impacts her students. This could be considered a form of metacognition; but for Kelly, it seemed
to be a strategy she used to try to improve her lessons and how she used technology in her
classroom.
In addition, Kelly shared another example in her interview of how she reflects as a
classroom teacher.
I'm constantly thinking, what can I do better? I reflect, because not starting off with
technology, I'm always thinking of how I could better it. I’m always trying to make it
better, or making it more interesting, or changing it.
In this response, Kelly shared that she reflects on a regular basis and that the integration of
technology is something relatively new to her; therefore, she is making attempts to use reflection
and self-monitoring to improve or change her instructional practices.
Evidence gathered in this study aligns with research which states that reflecting and
monitoring for understanding can enhance metacognition and that metacognitive knowledge
helps learners consciously assess their own performance (Piaget, 1985; Choi, Land, & Turgeon,
2005). In Meredith’s interview, she self-reported how she reflected and monitored a recent
technology integrated lesson in her classroom. Meredith said, “One time I realized the Google
Slides presentation I made was too wordy and the students didn't get it, so I switched it for the
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 64

next group.” Based on Meredith’s interview response, she reflected on her lesson, monitored
students for understanding, and then assessed her own performance which prompted her to make
the necessary adjustments to her lesson. This is an example of how Meredith attempted to use
metacognitive strategies to monitor, reflect, and adjust her lesson to ensure that she was meeting
the needs of her students.
Data gathered in this study align with research which states that metacognitive skills
allow people to refine and restructure their knowledge which enhances metacognition (Choi,
Land, & Turgeon, 2005). Bailey shared in her interview response how she used reflection to
refine and restructure her future lesson planning. “I'm a big reflector because I want to know
what works and what doesn't work. So, I really do try to go back and look at the lesson and then
adjust it to make it better.” Based on Bailey’s comment, she perceived that refining and
restructuring her lessons help her to effectively integrate one-to-one computing in her classroom,
which could connect to her ability to use metacognitive skills. In conclusion, the interviews and
observations support the finding that the teachers made an effort to use metacognitive strategies
to reflect on how they were using technology and integrating it in the classroom. This process of
reflection is inherent to any successful coaching support.
Finding 3: Feelings of self-efficacy inspired teachers in the Technology Academy to coach
other teachers.
The third finding to emerge from the data was that feelings of self-efficacy inspired the
teacher in the Technology Academy to coach other teachers. To have feelings of self-efficacy,
teachers need to believe that they are capable of effectively integrating one-to-one computing in
the classroom. Bandura (2000) described self-efficacy as a belief a person holds about his/her
capability to perform a particular skill. When a teacher feels self-efficacious in his/her ability,
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 65

he/she is more engaged in the learning and more likely to continue to engage in the task (Rueda,
2011). Simultaneously, for years, the literature has stated that the best way to understand a
concept is to explain it to someone else; this is known as the protégé effect (Paul, 2011).
Evidence gathered in this study aligns with research which states that self-efficacy is
mediated by collaboration and support among fellow teachers (Geijsel et al., 2009). All three
teachers described feeling confident and capable of supporting and collaborating with other
teachers who struggled integrating one-to-one computing. These feelings of confidence and
capability are aspects of self-efficacy. In other words, a person who feels confident enough to
model a technology integrated lesson to a fellow educator is likely to feel a certain level of self-
efficacy.
Research states that teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are more willing to take
responsibility and meet the needs of others which aligns to the evidence gathered about Bentley
School District (Soodak & Podell, 1994). For example, this was evident when Meredith’s class
was observed supporting a first-grade class with a technology project. Meredith modeled a
Google Drawings lesson that focused on creating and completing a Venn Diagram to the class,
similar to how the technology coach would model a lesson. Next, Meredith walked around the
room to make sure that each group was accessing the one-to-one computing and completing the
diagram. During this time, I observed the first-grade teacher taking notes. She even asked
Meredith about how to resize the images. When I asked Meredith about supporting other
teachers, she said, “I would say the growth and training that I had in those two years of the
Technology Academy helped me so much, to where I feel comfortable helping other people
understand how to integrate technology in their classroom. It really set me up to be successful.”
Data support that Meredith perceived to increase her knowledge which could have encouraged
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 66

her feelings of self-efficacy supporting another teacher who was integrating one-to-one
computing. By saying the “growth and training” helped her, she is alluding to the knowledge
growth gained through the professional development and coaching as discussed in a previous
section. And, research shows that teachers’ perceptions of their own teaching play an integral
part of successful teaching practice and feelings of self-efficacy (Lee, Cawthon, & Dawson,
2013). To clarify, Meredith did not use the word self-efficacious in her interview, but the fact
that she felt confident enough to model a lesson for another teacher demonstrated that she had
feelings of self-efficacy to effectively integrate one-to-one computing.
Evidence of self-efficacy was also unmistakable during my sixth-grade observation.
Bailey’s class partnered with the adjoining fourth-grade class to produce a cross-grade level,
technology project. During the observation, students convened in one of the two classrooms. At
one point, fourth-grade teacher Mr. Allen, asked Bailey for her assistance because a group of his
students had a technical question he could not answer about inserting self-created videos into a
Google Presentation. Bailey later said, “I feel that I can help others. I feel confident enough that
if somebody else is stuck, I can help with that.” Supporting another teacher indicated that Bailey
felt confident in her ability to integrate one-to-one computing and support for a colleague who
was struggling in that area. While she also did not use the word, self-efficacious, Bailey stated
that “I feel comfortable helping another teacher.” Based on her response, Bailey had the
confidence to help a colleague with the integration of technology indicating that Bailey felt
efficacious in own ability. Based on the protégé effect, a teacher is not likely to show another
teacher how to integrate technology or how to use it with a group of students unless she feels
capable of effectively integrating one-to-one computing in her classroom. Therefore, the finding
can be confirmed that the teachers who participated in the Technology Academy felt self-
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 67

efficacious integrating technology in the classroom; thus, they felt inspired and motivated to help
other teachers who were struggling with technology at their school site.
In addition to the knowledge and organizational influences already examined above, the
research questions and conceptual framework also focused on teachers’ motivation integrating
one-to-one computing in the classroom. As supported by the literature, teachers need to feel
capable of using the technology and integrating it in the classroom. In this study, the three
teachers all felt capable enough to coach other teachers at their school who were learning to
integrate technology in the classroom. This self-efficacy stemmed from confidence gained
through growth in knowledge via the training received.
Conclusion Related to the Findings
The case study’s findings partially answered the research questions through interview
questions and observations. The data in this study represented the voices and teaching practices
of three teachers who completed two years of the District’s Technology Academy.
The findings in this study included: 1) Teachers perceived that the formal professional
development and in-class coaching increased their procedural knowledge for integrating one-to-
one computing; 2) Teachers made an effort to use metacognitive strategies to reflect on how they
are using technology and integrating it in the classroom; and 3) Feelings of self-efficacy inspired
teachers in the Technology Academy to coach other teachers.
The findings from the study led me to conclude that professional development and in-
class coaching are essential components to support teachers’ knowledge and motivation for
integrating one-to-one computing. Finally, the teachers who participated in this study completed
two years of the Technology Academy and exited the cohort. Through the interviews and
observations, data supported the finding that the teachers perceived that they increased their
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 68

knowledge and motivation and that they will be likely to continue integrating one-to-one
computing. Because I did not do any pre-and post knowledge assessments or prolonged
observations, I was not able to conclude that teachers increased their procedural knowledge;
however, each teacher perceived that they increased their knowledge over the two-years.
Supported by the literature and the data, it can be concluded that the combination of professional
development and in-class coaching can help to support teachers’ learning to integrate one-to-one
computing in the classroom. Additionally, there were organizational challenges which might
affect the school district. For example, there was an organizational challenge that caused
concern in regard to the coaching support which included the high number of staffing changes in
a two-year period. Furthermore, there was a concern among the teachers interviewed that the
one-to-one computing initiative would not be sustained or funded in outgoing years.
This dissertation investigated the importance of professional development in a one-to-one
classroom. This qualitative case study examined if and how ongoing professional development
and in-class coaching influences the teachers’ knowledge and motivation to integrate technology
in the classroom and addressed two research questions which asked:
1. What were Bentley School District fourth through sixth-grade teachers’ knowledge and
motivation related to integrating one-to-one computing in their classrooms after two years of
professional development?
2. What was the interaction between organizational culture and context and the fourth through
sixth-grade teachers’ knowledge and motivation to integrate one-to-one computing in their
classrooms?
The remainder of this section will explore the implications for practice, recommendations
for practice, future research, and a conclusion.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 69

Implications for Practice
In this section, implications will be examined to help educators use this work to improve
their knowledge and understanding related to professional development and in-class coaching.
Technology has become more accessible in K-8 classrooms; however professional development
for teachers integrating one-to-one computing is often inadequate. Bentley School District began
the Technology Academy four years ago with a group of teachers who would receive
professional development, in-class coaching, and one-to-one computing for the classroom. Over
the past years, it had grown to over a hundred teachers per year, and teachers have the option of
participating a one or two-year cohort. This study found that the professional development and
in-class coaching supported teachers’ perceived knowledge integrating one-to-one computing in
the classroom. These results may help to provide other practitioners with a curiosity regarding
the relationship between perceived procedural knowledge and professional development.
Moreover, feelings of self-efficacy inspired teachers to coach others, which might be of interest
to other researchers looking to determine how feelings of self-efficacy effect learning and
motivation. In this study, there are elements that can be drawn upon from this study’s findings to
help inform the practitioner’s approach to the integration of one-to-one computing in the K-8
classroom. In the section below, I present recommendations for practice.
Recommendations for Practice
The recommendations for this study were anchored in the research questions, the
conceptual framework, the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences, and the
literature. In the sections that follow, I will present the recommendations by the influences that
shaped the conceptual framework.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 70

Procedural Knowledge. Procedural knowledge was examined through observations
which were supported by the literature review and Clark and Estes (2008), who recognized the
importance of having procedural knowledge to learn how to implement and apply a new skill, as
in the case of integrating one-to-one computing into core subjects. Teachers need training to
build procedural knowledge to know how to integrate one-to-one computing in the learning
environment. Based on the study, it was unfounded that the teachers’ procedural knowledge
actually increased, but the teachers perceived that the professional development and in-class
coaching increased their knowledge for integrating one-to-one computing. Therefore, based on
the research, it can be assumed that gaps in procedural knowledge would likely continue until
teachers know how to integrate one-to-one computing in the learning environment. The
recommendation would be to continue providing teachers with professional development and in-
class coaching to support teachers, but to include a pre-and post-assessment to see if procedural
knowledge actually increases as a result of the training opportunities. It is also recommended
that additional observations take place to determine how the content from the ongoing
professional development support the teachers’ procedural knowledge and is being transferred
into classroom instructional practices.
The SAMR model was a framework that was integrated into the ongoing professional
development trainings and in-class coaching sessions, but during the observations and the
interviews, none of the teachers referred to it as a way they plan lessons or reflect on their
lessons. Therefore, a recommendation for future trainings would be to provide more explicit
training on the SAMR model and to complete learning activities with teachers to ensure they
have a solid understanding of it. Moreover, other frameworks such as TPACK as well as the
ISTE standards should be introduced as part of the ongoing professional development training as
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 71

a way to expose teachers to different models regarding technology integration. The exposure to
new models will further support teacher learning and provide opportunities for teachers to
analyze how they are integrating technology and how national standards for both educators and
students could be applied to increase student outcomes.
Metacognitive Knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness and knowledge
of one’s own cognition (Krathwohl, 2002). Teachers need to know how to reflect on their
effectiveness in integrating one-to-one computing in their classroom. Mayer (2011) found that
the use of metacognitive strategies facilitates learning. In addition, metacognitive awareness
helps teachers to take ownership of their own learning by increasing awareness of how they
learn, understanding their learning needs, and reflecting on what learning is still necessary
(Mayer, 2011). The data showed that Bentley School District teachers attempted to use
metacognitive strategies to reflect on how they are using technology and integrating it in the
classroom. Gaps in metacognitive awareness will likely continue until teachers understand how
to use metacognitive strategies to reflect on their learning. The recommendation for teachers is
to provide them with job aids to support metacognition, reflecting on why are they are
integrating technology to enhance student learning as well as how they are integrating one-to-one
computing in their classroom. It is also recommended to increase accountability measures to
ensure that all teachers are completing the monthly reflections.
Self-Efficacy. Teachers need to believe that they are capable of effectively integrating
one-to-one computing in the classroom learning environment. Parjares (2006) found that
modeling and feedback increase self-efficacy. This would suggest that providing teachers with
training and support in the classroom by modeling lessons and providing feedback will increase
feelings of self-efficacy when integrating one-to-one computing. The motivational influences for
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 72

this study state that teachers need to believe that they are capable of effectively integrating one-
to-one computing in the classroom learning environment which is supported by the data. A
recommendation is that the organization continue to provide teachers with feedback from their
in-class coaching sessions and to provide teachers with professional development and in-class
coaching as the combination of these two activities seemed to increase their self-efficacy. In
addition to this continued professional development, it is recommended that the District provide
opportunities for teachers who have completed the Technology Academy to move into a
coaching role at their school site or at the District level.
Organization Recommendations. The organizational influences were examined to
evaluate how Bentley School District was achieving its organizational goal through interviews,
observations, and the literature review. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organization and
stakeholder goals are challenged when there are not enough resources. Moreover, when there is
a lack of effective organizational resources and cultural settings and cultural models, it may
prevent stakeholders from achieving their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Both
cultural models and cultural settings must align throughout the organization’s structure to
achieve the mission and goals.
Based on the Clark and Estes model (2008), the cultural model influence for Bentley
School District states that the organization needs to provide ongoing professional development to
teachers on how to integrate one-to-one computing into the learning environment. Therefore, it
is recommended that the District continue to provide the professional development and that
future trainings include pre-post assessment data to see if knowledge did in fact increase. From a
theoretical perspective, it would make sense that by providing ongoing professional development
to support the integration of one-to-one computing, teachers would be more knowledgeable and
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 73

comfortable integrating one to one in their classroom environment. In addition, a
recommendation for the District is to sustain and recruit high-quality technology coaches, to
review the conditions that created such a high-turnover in personnel, and to provide opportunities
for interested teachers who completed the Academy to move towards a coaching position, either
at the site or District level.
Based on the Clark and Estes model (2008), the cultural setting influence for Bentley
School District states that the organization needs to continue to support and sustain the one-to-
one computing initiative by continuing to fund the necessary technology equipment in
classrooms. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organizations must provide employees with the
resources needed to achieve their performance and organizational goals. Furthermore, when
teachers’ resource needs are being met, there is an increase in student learning outcomes
(Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003). Lastly, organizational effectiveness increases when
leaders ensure that employees have the resources needed to achieve the organization’s goal
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Therefore, it is recommended that the organization needs to continue to
support and sustain the one-to-one computing initiative by continuing to fund the necessary
technology equipment in classrooms. From a theoretical perspective, it would follow that by
providing the necessary support and resources for teachers; the organization would increase its
effectiveness in student achievement through the integration of one-to-one computing in core
subjects throughout the school district. A recommendation is for the District to align the
technology initiative to the Local Control Accountability Plan or LCAP to ensure that funding is
allocated annually. Additionally, it is recommended to refresh the devices every three to four
years and communicate with employees that the one-to-one computing initiative will be
sustained.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 74

Future Research
Over the past decade, technology in classrooms has increased significantly. However,
how technology is being integrated in classrooms throughout the nation varies by District and
school site. This is a small-scale case study that examined the importance of professional
development and in-class coaching in a one-to-one classroom environment by providing an
application based cohort to build knowledge and motivation. More research is needed to review
how technology impacts instruction and student learning. Future studies should build on the
findings of this research so that educators in the field have a better understanding, grounded in
empirical literature, to create a robust and sustainable research-based model to know how to
effectively increase teachers’ knowledge and motivation integrating one-to-one computing in the
classroom.
There is a lot of research that states professional development is a way to increase
knowledge. One of the interesting findings of this study was the teachers’ perceived an increase
in their procedural knowledge as a result of the professional development and in-class coaching.
The findings of the study describe the perceived effects of the professional development and in-
class coaching on a teacher’s procedural knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and self-efficacy
which should be tested by additional researchers, but the study did not assess teachers’ actual
knowledge. More research can be done in this area which also includes completed both pre-and
post-assessments to determine if knowledge increased. Lastly, in order to determine teachers’
procedural knowledge, long-term observations need to take place in addition to the pre- and post-
assessment. Procedural knowledge can really only be examined when one observed practice.
However, to see how the practices were influenced by the training, longer terms observations are
necessary.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 75

More studies on the relationship between teachers’ knowledge and motivation should be
conducted because this study was unfounded in determining how procedural knowledge and
motivation are inter-related. Because teachers put forth the effort to apply to the Technology
Academy, future research projects should examine how that motivation influences their
knowledge toward integrating technology. The focus of these studies should be on how to build
teachers’ procedural knowledge while positively influencing their motivation and feelings of
self-efficacy to integrate one-to-one computing in the classroom.
This study did not examine the student perspective of using one-to-one computing in the
classroom environment or student’s motivation towards learning in a technology-rich
environment. In addition, the study did not evaluate how the teachers’ knowledge and
motivation integrating one-to-one computing shifted over the course of the two-year Academy. I
would recommend additional studies on students’ feelings toward the use of one-to-one
computing in the class and how they felt it positively or negatively affected their learning.
Lastly, I would recommend studies be conducted on classrooms over a two-year period where
the teacher and the students complete a yearly pre-evaluation, mid-year evaluation, and post-
evaluation on how their teachers’ knowledge integrating technology shifted over the two years.
Conclusion
The integration of one-to-one computing throughout K-12 school districts is a national
shift. As a reminder, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017), 77% of jobs will
require technology skills within the next four years. In order to ensure that technology is
effectively being integrated into the learning environment, we must provide teachers with
adequate and ongoing professional development and in-class coaching. Through the Clark and
Estes framework, the research questions, and the conceptual framework, the goal of this study
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 76

was to examine the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on K-8 public school
teachers to integrate one-to-one computing in the classroom, and to open up the way for future
research which focuses on ensuring that teachers are prepared to effectively integrate technology
in a technology-rich environment.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 77

References
Archibald, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content
knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656-
1662.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
Berger, J. (2014). Word of mouth and interpersonal communication: A review and directions for
future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 586-607.
BSD. (2016). School district website. Retrieved 5 December 2016, URL withheld to protect the
identity of the study site.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). In qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.) (pp. 82-102 ONLY). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Brooks-Young, S. (2007). Digital-age literacy for teachers: applying technology standards in
everyday practice. ISTE (Interntl Soc Tech Educ.)
Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to measure
preservice teachers' technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology barriers.
Computers in the Schools, 25(1-2), 112-125. doi:10.1080/07380560802157972
California Department of Education. (2016). Cde.ca.gov. Retrieved 24 September 2016,
from www.cde.ca.gov.
Choi, I., Land, S. M., & Turgeon, A. J. (2005). Scaffolding peer-questioning strategies to
facilitate metacognition during online small group discussion. Instructional science,
33(5-6), 483-511.
Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 78

and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 411-433.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2002.10782359
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Conley, D. T., & McGaughy, C. (2012). College and Career Readiness. Educational Leadership.
Cooper, O. P. (2015). How ISTE's standards for technology coaches inform AASL's
standards for school librarians. TechTrends, 59(3), 48.
Coutinho, S. A., & Neuman, G. (2008). A model of metacognition, achievement goal
orientation, learning style and self-efficacy. Learning environments research, 11(2), 131-
151.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.
Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the Black Box of Classroom Practice: Change without Reform in
American Education. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge,
MA 02138.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Desautel, Daric. (2009). Becoming a Thinking Thinker: Metacognition, Self-Reflection, and
Classroom Practice. Teachers College Record, 111(8), 1997-2020.
Duvall, S., & Pasque, P. (2013). The 21st century literacies gap: A case for adoption of the
student learning networks model grades 9–16. Public Services Quarterly, 9(1), 70-80.
Ether, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration?. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 79

Foltos, L. (2014, July 21). ISTE | Put me in, coach! I'm ready to teach with technology.
Retrieved October 1, 2017, from https://www.iste.org/explore/ArticleDetail?articleid=28
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change, 2.

Garner, R. & Alexander, P.A. (1989). Metacognition: Answered and unanswered questions.

Educational Psychologist 24: 143–158.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J., Stoel, R. D., & Krüger, M. L. (2009). The effect of
teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers'
professional learning in Dutch schools. The elementary school journal, 109(4), 406-427.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right..” Becoming
Qualitative Researchers: An introduction, 162-183.
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation
Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its
use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441.
Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-one computing in K–12 classrooms: A review of
the literature from 2004 through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 48(2), 129-142.
Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2),
277-302.
Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006, March). Assessing technology integration: the
RAT–replacement, amplification, and transformation-framework. In Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616-1620).
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 80

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41, 212–218.
Larson, L. C., & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21
st
century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121-123.
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.
Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) - Resources (CA Dept of Education). (2018).
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/
Lee, B., Cawthon, S., & Dawson, K. (2013). Elementary and secondary teacher self-efficacy for
teaching and pedagogical conceptual change in a drama-based professional development
program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 84-98.
Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between
technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3),
455-472.
Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom practices of
teachers and students in rich technology-based classrooms. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2005, 12(3), 281-307.
Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The role of
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(4), 417-
430.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage
publications.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 81

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McCormick, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (2001). Information and communications technology,
.knowledge and pedagogy. Education, Communication & Information, 1(1), 37-57.
McDonald, L. (2014). Transfer of the learning: Teacher professional
development. European Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11(4), 1569-1584.
Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R. (1995). Transforming with technology: No "silver bullet".
The Education Digest, 61(4), 31.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional
development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272.
National Education Association. (2009). Technology in schools: The ongoing challenge of
access, adequacy, and equity. Policy Brief, 19.
National Center for education statistics. (2000). Stats in brief: teacher use of computers
and the Internet in public schools. Washington, DC: Author.
Niederhauser, D., & Wessling, S. (2011). Professional Development: Catalyst for Change?.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(8), 38-39.
Nokes, T. J. (2009). Mechanisms of knowledge transfer. Thinking & Reasoning, 15(1), 1-36.

P21. (2016). P21.org. Retrieved 5 December 2016, from http://www.p21.org/
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. Advances in motivation and
achievement, 10(149), 1-49.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 82

Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual
Review of Psychology 49: 345–375.
Partnering for Education Reform | U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Ed.gov.
Retrieved 24 September 2016, from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/partnering-
education-reform
Paul, A. M. (2011). The Protégé Effect: Why teaching someone else is the best way to
learn. Brilliant: The Science of Smart.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Peterson, D. S., Taylor, B. M., Burnham, B., & Schock, R. (2009). Reflective coaching
conversations: A missing piece. The Reading Teacher, 62(6), 500-509.
Piaget J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem o
intellectual development (T. Brown & K.L. Thampy, Trans.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Public School Review - Profiles of USA Public Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/
Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advanced practice. Retrieved February 12,
2013.
Puentedura, R. (2012). The SAMR model: Background and exemplars. Retrieved from
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2012/08/23/SAMR_BackgroundExemplars
.pdf.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 83

Riley, R. W., Holleman, F., & Roberts, L. G. (2000). E-learning: Putting a world-class education
at the fingertips of all children. (The National Educational Technology Plan).
Washington DC; US Department of Education.
Roberts, K., Shedd, M., & Norman, R. (2012). The common core standards on technology: A
*SHIFT* in focus for states. New England Reading Association Journal, 48(1), 56-65.
Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for
evaluating mLearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 18(2), n2.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker Cambridge.
Harvard University.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York: Teachers College Press.
Saine, P. (2013). Implementation and assessment of technology-based common core state
standards for English language arts: An exploratory study. New England Reading
Association Journal, 49(1), 100-103,105.
Smith, T. (2016). New frontiers in blended learning. Tech & Learning, 36(8), 30.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1994). Teachers' thinking about difficult-to-teach students. The
Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 44-51.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond
traditional motivational and behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 62-
74.
Stover, K., Kissel, B., Haag, K., & Shoniker, R. (2011). Differentiated coaching: Fostering
reflection with teachers. The reading teacher, 64(7), 498-509.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 84

Taatgen, N. A. (2013). The nature and transfer of cognitive skills. Psychological Review,
120(3), 439-471.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching. Learning, and Schooling
in Social.
The 21st- Century Learning Environment: What it is and Why ... (2016). Retrieved from
http://www.csarchpc.com/knowledge/21st-century-learning-environment-matters/
Tongchai, N. (2016). Impact of self-regulation and open learner model on learning achievement
in one-to-one environment. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, 6(5), 343.
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Ed.gov. Retrieved 12 February 2017, from
http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/partnering- education-reform
Varier, D., Dumke, E. K., Abrams, L. M., Conklin, S. B., Barnes, J. S., & Hoover, N. R. (2017).
Potential of one-to-one technologies in the classroom: teachers and students weigh in.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 967-992.
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st
century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of curriculum
studies, 44(3), 299-321.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of
Research Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement. A Working
Paper.
Wei, L., & Hindman, D. B. (2011). Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects
of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass
Communication and Society, 14(2), 216-235.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 85

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational
management. Academy of management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Yarbro, J., McKnight, K., Elliott, S., Kurz, A., & Wardlow, L. (2016). Digital instructional
strategies and their role in classroom learning. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 48(4), 274-289.
Zhao, Y., & Bryant, F. L. (2006). Can teacher technology integration training alone lead to high
levels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers’ technology integration
after state mandated technology training. Electronic Journal for the Integration of
Technology in Education, 5(1), 53-62.
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2012). Introduction. In Metacognition in science education (pp. 1-19).
Springer, Dordrecht.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 86

Appendix A: Protocols

Observational Protocol

Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I really appreciate you allowing me to
observe your classroom today. As you know, there will be two observations in total, each of
them 2 hours long. I know we spoke about the time on the phone. Is there any conflict during
the observation time? Prior to getting started, I want to make sure to answer any questions that
you might have in regard to the observation before we begin today.
I will be observing multiple classrooms and be talking to multiple teachers to learn more
about how one-to-one computing is being integrated into the learning environment.
In today’s observation, I am a complete observer. I want to clarify that I am not
evaluating you or making any judgments on how you are performing as a teacher. This
observation is also confidential. This means your name and what I observe today will not be
shared with anyone outside of the research team. I will not share them with other teachers, the
principal, or the District.
The data for this study will be compiled into a report. I may use some drawing of your
classroom environment or how technology is integrated, but none of this data will be directly
attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will try my best to
de-identify any of the data I gather from you. If you are interested in a copy of the final paper, I
am happy to provide you with one. I will keep the data in a password protected computer, and
all data will be destroyed after three years.
Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If you do not have any
questions, I would like to have your permission to set up in the back of the classroom to begin
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 87

the observation. I did bring my computer and a notepad to take notes and draw a diagram of
your classroom environment. Is that okay?
II. Field Notes Checklist
• Pens
• Notebook/laptop
• Classroom map of the classroom
• Documents on the wall and what is written down
• Observer Comments (OC’s) and reactions
• Timekeeping (Phone or watch)
• Timestamped notes every 5-10 minutes
• Checklist of all materials
III. Observational Framework (SAMR Model)

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 88

IV. Closing:
Thank you so much for allowing me to observe today! I really appreciate your time and
willingness to have me here.
V. Post observation summary and reflection to be completed after each observation
• Use the SAMR framework to determine the level of technology integration
Clean up notes as soon as possible
• Add more details
• Type up all notes
• Write a summary of what was observed
• Write a reflection of what was observed
• Biases

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 89

Interview Protocol

Thank you again for agreeing to participate in my study. I really appreciate the time that
you have set aside to answer some of my questions. Since we have already completed the two
observations, this is the second part of my study. Today’s interview should take about an hour
(60 minutes). I know we spoke about the time on the phone. Does that still work for you?
Prior to getting started, I want to make sure to answer any questions that have come up since the
observation and before we begin today. As I shared before, here is a little background about me
and the purpose for today. I am currently enrolled as a student at USC and am conducting a
study on leadership increasing the technological capacity of teachers in a one-to-one classroom.
I am particularly interested in understanding how the Technology Academy, which
included professional development and embedded coaching influences the integration of one-to-
one in the classroom learning environment.
As you are aware, I am observing multiple classrooms and talking to multiple teachers to
learn more about this. In today’s interview, I am strictly a researcher. This means that my
questions (and observations) are not evaluative. I am not making any judgments on how you are
performing as a teacher. This interview is also confidential. This means that your name and the
perspectives you provide will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team. I will not
share them with other teachers, the principal, or the District.
The data for this study will be compiled into a report. I may use some of what you say as
direct quotes, but none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to
protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you.
If you are interested in a copy of the final paper, I am happy to provide you with one. I will keep
the data in a password protected computer, and all data will be destroyed after three years.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 90

Do you have any questions about the study before we get started? If you do not have any
questions, I would like to have your permission to begin the interview. I have brought a digital
recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording
is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone
outside the research team. May I have your permission to record our conversation?
II. Setting the Stage
I would like to start by asking you some background questions about you.
• First, could you tell me about your background in education?
o How long have you worked in the field?
o What grade do you currently teach?
o When did you start integrating technology in a one-to-one learning environment?
III. Interview Questions
Now I would like to ask you some questions about the Technology Academy and
technology integration.

1. What does it mean to you to integrate technology in the classroom?
a. What should it look like?
2. Procedural- Describe a core lesson where technology was integrated.
a. What were the students doing in the lesson?
3. Procedural- If I walked into your classroom when students are using technology, what
would I see you doing?
4. Procedural- If I walked into your classroom when students are using technology, what
would I see students doing?
a. How would it feel?
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 91

5. Metacognitive- How do you reflect on your lessons that integrate one-to-one computing
in your classroom, if at all?
a. How does this reflection affect your subsequent teaching, if at all?
b. How does this reflection affect student learning, if at all?
6. Tell me about a time when you reflected on your instruction.
a. What did you do in this act of reflection? (Write in a journal? Just think?)
b. What were some things you reflected on?
7. What are your thoughts about your ability to integrate technology in the classroom?
a. What would you say you are really good at doing when it comes to integrating
technology?
b. What would you say you could still improve on when it comes to integrating
technology in your classroom?
8. Self-Efficacy- How do you feel you are currently doing integrating technology in the
classroom?
9. Self- Efficacy- How has your ability to integrate technology in the classroom changed, if
at all?
a. Can you provide an example that demonstrates this change in your abilities?
10. Self-Efficacy- If you felt that you have increased your capacity over the past two years,
how has this made you a more effective teacher?
11. Can you tell me about a time when you felt like you did a good job with integrating
technology in your classroom?
a. How do you know you did a good job?
b. What evidence demonstrates that?
12. Can you tell me about a time when you thought to yourself “that didn’t go so well” when
you tried to integrate technology in your classroom?
a. What do you think went wrong?
13. Cultural Model- What are your thoughts about using one-to-one computing in the
classroom?
14. Cultural Model- In what ways do you feel that one-to-one computing supports student
learning, if at all?
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 92

15. Some might say that one-to-one computing does not necessarily support student learning.
How would you respond to them?
16. Cultural Setting- Tell me about your thoughts about the professional development
trainings you have received about technology integration?
a. How have the trainings shaped your teaching, if at all?
17. Tell me about your experience with embedded coaching.
18. Cultural Setting- How has embedded coaching shaped your teaching, if at all?
19. Cultural Setting – How has embedded coaching helped with student learning, if at all?
20. How does the school site administration support you as a teacher with regards to one-to-
one computing, if at all?
21. What is one thing you really appreciate about your school site leadership when it comes
to integrating technology in the classroom?
22. What is one thing you think should be done at your school site to better support you with
integrating technology in your classroom?
23. Cultural Setting- How does the school district support you as a teacher in the classroom
in regard to one-to-one computing, if at all?
24. What is one thing you really appreciate about your district in regard to one-to-one
computing integration?
25. What is one thing you think should be done at the district level to better support you with
integrating technology in your classroom?
If I have any follow-up questions, would you be okay if I call or email you? Which do you
prefer?
IV. Closing Question
We are now going to end the interview, but before we do, I am wondering if there is
anything that you would add to our conversation today that I might not have covered?
V. Closing:
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate
your time and willingness to share.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 93

If I find myself with a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to contact
you by phone? Again, thank you for participating in my study. As a thank you, please take (gift
card).
VI. Post interview summary and reflection
These will be added immediately following each interview.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 94

Appendix B: Credibility and Trustworthiness

Qualitative research must maintain credibility and trustworthiness by conducting the
study in an ethical manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Creswell, 2014). Research is more than
just collecting information; it is about being trustworthy and ethical. As Patton (2015) states, the
trustworthiness of the data is associated directly to the trustworthiness of the researcher who
collects and analyzes the data. I was vigilant about how I collected, analyzed, and interpreted
my data to ensure that I upheld credibility and trustworthiness in my study. As stated in my
protocols, I conducted both observations and interviews, took detailed notes, transcribed them
using a password-protected computer, created pseudonyms for each participant to ensure
confidentiality, and uploaded each file into Atlas.ti, a resource use in the coding of qualitative
data.
Credibility is an important consideration that a qualitative researcher must maximize to
strengthen the study and present a holistic interpretation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2013; Creswell,
2014). One of the best-known strategies to increase credibility is triangulation. Triangulation
can be defined as using different methods as a system of checks and balances, as a method to
reduce bias, and as a way to gain a viable understanding of the research being investigated
(Maxwell, 2013). This was a powerful strategy that will help me increase credibility in my
research because it used more than one data collection method and multiple sources of data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To triangulate, I completed both interviews and observations. My
interviews asked teachers to self-report how they integrated one-to-one computing while my
observations allowed a first-hand experience into this integration.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 95

Qualitative research is based on different postulations and viewpoints which is the
primary reason that credibility and trustworthiness are major concerns. As the researcher, it was
essential that I was aware of any bias that could potentially be brought into the study based on
personal beliefs or life experience (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Bias is a threat to
internal validity, and Maxwell (2013) underscores that bias cannot be eliminated, but it is the
integral responsibility of mine to understand possible bias and how it may have influenced the
conclusions of the study. As a former implementation manager for the program under study, one
assumption I have was that the Technology Academy helped to build the technological capacity
of public school teachers in Bentley School District over the past two years. Being a member of
the organization could be considered another bias, but since I no longer am employed there, I do
not feel that this would be a concern. Two ways I minimized bias was by being cognizant of
potential sources of biases and ensuring that I had quality interview questions that were not
biased, double- barreled or leading. As a researcher, it is important to explain, understand, and
deal with my assumptions and biases in order to avoid negative consequences at the conclusion
of my study (Maxwell, 2013).

THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 96

Appendix C: Ethics
As a researcher, behaving and acting ethically is at the core of maintaining a high quality,
ethical study. Before any qualitative study, the researcher must ensure that each participant
provides informed consent, is voluntarily partaking in the study, understands how confidentiality
will be maintained as well as how data will be securely stored and provides permission to record
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Glesne, 2011). According to Rubin and Rubin (2011), there are
essential obligations to assure that the participants are not harmed or put at risk as a result of the
research. Some of the responsibilities that the researcher must uphold are to show respect, honor
promises including confidentiality, and do not harm or pressure the interviewee (Rubin and
Rubin, 2011). Initially, I planned to observe and interview teachers who had varying teaching
abilities, but due to my ethical feelings about ensuring that I do not harm the participant, I chose
to select participants based on their years of experience in the teaching field. I felt that it could
have been apparent to certain readers who the teachers being interviewed were and that their
teaching abilities were being called into question or referenced in a way that could cause harm to
the individual.
As an additional resource to assure human subjects are not harmed in a research study,
the federal government mandated Instructional Review Boards (Glesne, 2011). There are five
guiding principles that must be followed by the researcher. They are that all participants must be
able to make informed decisions, a research subject can withdraw at any time, there cannot be
any unnecessary risks, and the study can only be conducted by a qualified researcher (Glesne,
2011). Moreover, according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), interviewing participants has both
risks and benefits, and it must always be a top priority of the researcher to ensure that the
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 97

benefits outweigh the risk. Often, particular studies using qualitative research are considered
low risk which makes it easier for researchers to get approval from the Instructional Review
Board (Rubin and Rubin, 2011). Overall, the researcher must act in the best interest of the
participants and comply with all of the ethical guidelines set forth by the institution.
As the primary researcher of this qualitative study, I observed the participants in their
natural setting, the classroom, as well as interviewed the participants in each of their classrooms.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016), state that observations must be conducted with full awareness that
the participant is being observed to uphold the ethical issues of privacy and informed consent.
It was important also to acknowledge the relationship between the researcher and the
participants. Previously, I was employed by the school district but have since taken another
position, prior to conducting any observations or interviews. In my former position, I was the
implementation manager of the Technology Academy, and so I knew the participants who will
be recruited for this study. This could be an ethical issue; however, I was never the evaluator of
the participants, and I know longer work for Bentley School District. According to Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), the relationship of the researcher to the participants is always a significant area of
debate and discussion and can influence the research. I did not believe that there was any
confusion by the members regarding my role as the researcher.
Qualitative research was engrained in ethical considerations. To ensure an ethical study,
I as the researcher adhered to the guidelines and regulations set forth by the governing board by
conducting myself in an ethical manner, participating in conversational partnerships, being
transparent, and assuring the participants were treated with the utmost respect.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 98

Appendix D: Limitations and Delimitations
There were both limitations and delimitations to this study. The first limitation of this
study was the time constraints of the researcher, which is why there were only two observations
per participant which took place over two days with 2 hours scheduled for each observation. In
addition, the sample size of the study was small; therefore, the information in this study cannot
be generalized. I was also limited to visiting the school within a 2-month window because of the
upcoming the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) test that
was scheduled for early May. The reason this was a limitation was because the teachers often
adjust some of their curriculum and concentrate on CAASPP practice tests in order to prepare
students for the mandated state test. The next limitation of the study was that each participant
would self-reporting, and I was relying on them to be honest and truthful in their responses. The
last limitation was that the findings did not fully answer the research questions. The data did not
conclude that the teachers actually increased their procedural knowledge, but more that each of
the participants perceived that the formal professional development and in-class coaching
increased their knowledge for integrating one-to-one computing. I feel that there was not enough
data to conclude an actual increase in procedural knowledge because there was not a pre-and
post-assessment in this study, nor were there in depth, long term observations of the teachers’
practice. A future study should include additional observations and a pre-and post-assessment to
determine if the teachers in fact increased their procedural knowledge and/or to engage in long-
term engagement in the field.
The main delimitation in this study was the University’s requirement to use the Clark and
Estes knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO) model and the conceptual framework.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 99

This framework guided the study by focusing on the concepts set forth by the authors. As such,
my interview and observation protocols required that I look through the KMO lens. While this
framework is good for determining employee performance capacity to meet a goal, other
frameworks might have illuminated additional/other factors that were missing from my
conceptual framework and thus from the rest of this study.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 100

Appendix E: Definitions
One-to-one computing: In education, the term one-to-one refers to a learning
environment where students and teachers have access to a personal computing device to use as a
tool for academic learning (Varier, Dumke, Abrams, Conklin, Barnes, & Hoover, 2017).
SAMR: The SAMR model is the framework that stands for substitution, augmentation,
modification, and redefinition. The SAMR model focuses on levels of technology integration
and the ability to transform learning with technology (Puentedura, 2009).
21
st
Century Learning Environment: The term 21
st
century learning environment can be
defined as learning opportunities where students take ownership over their learning, increasing
student learning and engagement, helping to promote communication, collaboration, critical
thinking, and creativity (Christensen, 2002).
ISTE: The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards are
defined as a roadmap to support educators, students, and administrators with guidelines for the
skills and knowledge necessary to support the integration of the Common Core State Standards,
college and career readiness skills, and 21
st
century learning (Cooper, 2015).
College and Career Readiness: The phrase college and career readiness can be defined as
students who can qualify for and succeed in entry-level, credit bearing college courses- or career
pathway- oriented training programs without the need for remediation coursework (Conley &
McGaugh, 2012).
Local Control Accountability Plan: The LCAP is a plan that describes the goals, actions,
services, and expenditures that address state and local priorities (Local Control and
Accountability Plan, 2018).
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 101

Appendix F: Literature Review Outline
The Importance of Technology in Today’s Classrooms

1. Topic Sentence: Studies have found that technology is greatly influencing classrooms across
the nation.
A. Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to
measure preservice teachers' technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology
barriers. Computers in the Schools, 25(1-2), 112-125. doi:10.1080/07380560802157972
1. The term technology integration refers to the use of technology to enhance
what teachers are doing in classrooms.
2. Technology integration is about improving student learning and student
achievement.
3. In the United States, school districts spent over $7.87 billion on the
implementation of technology devices in 2003-2004.

B. Ether, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for
technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-
39. doi:10.1007/BF02504683
1. According to market data retrieval (MDR, 2002) students throughout the
United States have an average student-computer ratio of 4 to 1 and 98% of
schools are connected to the Internet.
2. Based on the US Department of Education, technology is now considered by
most educators and parents to be an integral part of providing a high-quality
education.

C. Riley, R. W., Holleman, F., & Roberts, L. G. (2000). E-learning: Putting a world-
class education at the fingertips of all children. The National Educational Technology
Plan, US Department of Education, December.
1. Increasing the effectiveness of technology supporting content area teaching is
a national goal.

D. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(2),
277-302. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2
00085080?accountid=14749
1. Technology as a transformational tool will change teacher instructional
practices and roles in the classroom.
2. Less than 33% of public school teachers feel prepared to integrate technology
and the use of computers into their teaching.

E. Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 102

professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272.
1. Over the past few years technological changes have resulted in the rapid
proliferation of computers in schools.
2. By 1999, over 95% of classrooms have Internet conductivity in grades K-12,
according to web based education commission, 2000.

F. Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The
role of professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
39(4), 417.
1. For the past two decades, researchers in educational technology have suggested
that technology could be the catalyst for transforming teachers’ instructional
practices.
2. A 10-year study found that technology changed teacher and student roles in the
classrooms and learning was more student-centered.
3. It is important to use new pedagogic methods based on student-centered
approaches to learning that emphasize the development of higher order
reasoning and problem-solving skills.

Transition: Technology has resulted in a pedagogical shift among many K-12 public schools
who have allocated resources and personnel to this focus and will be the catalyst for
transforming teachers’ instructional practices. As technology continues to be implemented
throughout public schools, instructional practices are increasingly shifting towards a one-to-one
classroom environment as a way to increase student engagement, motivation and achievement.

One-to-One Classroom Environment

Topic Sentence: Studies have found that students in a one-to-one classroom environment are
more efficient, have higher levels of student achievement and increased student engagement.

A. Varier, D., Dumke, E. K., Abrams, L. M., Conklin, S. B., Barnes, J. S., & Hoover, N.
R. (2017). Potential of one-to-one technologies in the classroom: Teachers and students
weigh in. Educational Technology Research and Development, doi:10.1007/s11423-017-
9509-2
1. One-to-one computing refers to a learning environment where students and
teachers have access to a personal computing devices to use as a tool for academic
learning at any time during the instructional day.
2. One-to-one computing provide easy and continual access to technology that
overcome drawbacks associated with dedicated computer labs.
3. One-to-one computing plays a vital role in extending learning beyond the
classroom and at the same time bringing a larger world into the classroom.

B. Niederhauser, D., & Wessling, S. (2011). Professional Development: Catalyst for
Change?. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(8), 38-39.
1. Technology helps teachers and student do the work we have always done but in
a faster more efficient way.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 103

2. Technology can shift how students learn and how teachers teach.

C. Tongchai, N. (2016). Impact of self-regulation and open learner model on learning
achievement in one-to-one environment. International Journal of Information and
Education Technology, 6(5), 343.
1. The goal of a one-to-one model is designed to shift the standard of education.
2. The one-to-one approach promotes self-regulation and
cooperative/collaborative, student behavior, creating learners capable of working
together in a self-regulating manner.
3. There is evidence that a one-to-one model can enhance learning performance as
it supports self-regulation for learners.
4. A one-to-one classroom and online learning shows evidence of increased
learning achievement.

D. Smith, T. (2016). New frontiers in blended learning. Tech & Learning, 36(8), 30.
1. One study at an alternative high school in Arkansas reported a decrease in
discipline referrals by more than 50% after integrating a 1:1 technology model.
2. Approximately 54% of students were able to make progress recovering course
credits necessary to graduate in 2014-15, and that percentage increased to 78%
and the 2015-2016 school year.
3. A one-to-one learning environment enables students to learn in different ways
and earn credits quickly by accessing individualized instruction.
4. A one-to-one classroom environment helps to improve classroom management
because students are continually engaged.
5. According to David Rose, Washington DC public school’s deputy chief, he
attributes his impressive scale score on the NAEP to one-to-one technology
implementation.
6. Washington DC Public Schools is the fastest improving urban district
and they believe much of that success is due to their one-to-one learning
environment.
7. One-to-one technology helps create the crucial sense of ownership and the
teacher’s role is increasingly that the facilitator connecting learning resources.

E. Harper, B., & Milman, N. B. (2016). One-to-one technology in K-12 classrooms: A
review of the literature from 2004 through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 48(2), 129. doi:10.1080/15391523.2016.1146564
1. Quantitative research shows that schools with one-to-one laptops perform
better than those in schools with 1:5 programs.
2. Research determined that one-to-one devices and classrooms can impact
student achievement regardless of students’ socioeconomic background or ability
level.
3. Studies provided evidence that one-to-one technology integration increases the
frequency and meaningfulness of differentiation during classroom instruction.
4. Studies of student achievement indicated that schools facing achievement gaps
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 104

related to ability or socioeconomic status could benefit from one-to-one programs.
5. One-to-one technology implementation cultivated changes to the classroom
environment and offered students more collaborative and individualized learning
opportunities.

Transition: A one-to-one classroom environment shifts pedagogical practices by providing
opportunities for teachers to differentiate learning that helps to increase student achievement,
engagement and productivity.

Common Core Integration

Topic Sentence: Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are mandated in California and are
heavily embedded with technology.

A. Roberts, K., Shedd, M., & Norman, R. (2012). The common core standards on
technology: A *SHIFT* in focus for states. New England Reading Association Journal,
48(1), 56-65,114-115.
1. Technology has had a profound influence on our modes of communicating.
2. For teachers, it is not just a matter of the what to teach about technology, or the
content knowledge, but also how to teach with technology.
3. Teachers who are facilitating the development of students in their classroom to
construct their own knowledge must have both the understanding of how
technology relates to the content and how it relates to pedagogy.
4. It can be difficult to integrate technology into the classroom in meaningful
ways.
5. Technology and the Common Core Content Standards do not stand alone but
rather, they are integrated into content areas.
6. A study based on text analysis of seven standard documents revealed that eight
Common Core Content Standard strands involved technology which collectively
accounted for 29 grade level standards.

B. Saine, P. (2013). Implementation and assessment of technology-based common core
state standards for English language arts: An exploratory study. New England Reading
Association Journal, 49(1), 100-103,105.
1. In an exploratory study across three states in urban, rural and intercity areas, it
was found that 100% said they use digital technology of some sort.
2. The Common Core State Standards for English language arts requires students
to thoughtfully and skillfully use digital media and technology to enhance their
literary skills, requiring students to compare the knowledge they gain from
traditional texts other digital sources.
4. Technology allows students to further their learning and to better help them
express their ideas and thoughts.
5. Without proper training and support, one school that was surveyed quickly
learned that technology caused more distraction than the intended purpose.
7. It is important that students gain access to technology in school as this may
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 105

constitute the single most important opportunity to enhance digital skills that can
positively impact English Language Arts.
8. Teachers must be prepared and supported to make the needed transition to
ongoing changes within common core and technology.

C. Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272.
1. The Common Core State Standards state that technology is it tool, not as a set
of skills and must be taught as part of the curriculum.
2. As seen in the Common Core State Standards for math, it emphasizes that
teachers must understand how to integrate specific technology tools.
3. In addition in the English Language Arts Standards, there are strands that
discuss the strategic use of technology and digital media as well as the blending of
research and media skills into the standards.
4. Learning with technology allows the student to make sense of a problem and to
use appropriate tools to create concrete, viable arguments and sound reasoning for
their conclusion.
5. Transforming education through technology is a phenomenal opportunity but
there has to be a balance between the standards and how the technology is used.

Transition: An important aspect of the Common Core State Standards is not only integrating
technology but ensuring that students are college and career ready.

College and Career Readiness

Topic Sentence: College and career readiness is about preparing students for post-secondary
education and the workforce so that they are able to succeed in their future.

A. Varier, D., Dumke, E. K., Abrams, L. M., Conklin, S. B., Barnes, J. S., & Hoover, N.
R. (2017). Potential of one-to-one technologies in the classroom: Teachers and students
weigh in. Educational Technology Research and Development,
doi:10.1007/s11423-017-9509-2
1. Traditional learning environments have failed to prepare students for the 21
st

century workplace.
2. Today’s learning is focused on the development of complex, higher order
competencies including critical thinking, problem-solving, effective
communication and collaboration, creativity and digital literacy.
3. The development of 21
st
century skills and technological proficiency is
consistent with goals of national educational policies such as race to the top 10
sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics initiative.
4. One-to-one initiatives provided students equitable access to learning
resources.
5. A recent meta-analysis that included 96 laptop studies integrating one-to-one
found an increase in project-based learning and student-centered learning
environment among other positive effects.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 106

B. Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship
between technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(3), 455-472.
1. According to the US Department of Education (2000), one of the fundamental
reasons schools spend time and money on integrating technology is to improve
academic achievement for future success.
2. According to the US Department of Education (2004), another chief goal of
integrating technology into a classroom is to improve the mastery application
new technologies.
3. Preparing students so that they can fully participate in our increasingly
technological society continues to be a priority for many countries (Singapore
ministry of education, South Korean ministry of education, US Department of
Education).

C. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom
practices of teachers and students in rich technology-based classrooms. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 281-307. doi:10.1080/14759390500200208
1. Technology integration helps to create an environment that promotes and
produces mindful, self-regulated students.
2. A longitudinal, case study was conducted which consisted of 6 teachers and
164 students in grades four through six. Research showed that there was a radical
shift in student engagement and authentic learning.
3. One particular teacher in the study viewed technology as an intellectual partner
capable and empowering student capabilities.

Transition: College and career readiness skills along with a strong foundation in digital literacy
is essential to ensure that each student is prepared for post-secondary education and the
workplace ensuring future success.

Support of Technology Use

Topic Sentence: Research shows that in order to successfully implement and integrate
technology into the classroom, teachers must receive multiple levels of support.

A. Brush, T., Glazewski, K. D., & Hew, K. F. (2008). Development of an instrument to
measure preservice teachers' technology skills, technology beliefs, and technology
barriers. Computers in the Schools, 25(1-2), 112-125. doi:10.1080/07380560802157972
1. Part of the reason teachers are not effectively integrating technology may relate
to the level of preparation teachers are receiving.
2. The key to the effective use of technology in education relies very heavily on
how successfully teachers integrate technology into their teaching.
3. A quantitative research study that included 176 teachers who enrolled in a
teacher education program found that by enhancing their technology skill
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 107

levels, they were better equipped to integrate technology in the classroom.

B. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in
forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(2), 277-302. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2
00085080?accountid=14749
1. Teachers need to have the technological understanding to draw upon when
planning their instructions lessons.
2. Preparing teachers to integrate technology in multiple subject areas has been
limited.

C. National center for education statistics. (2000, April). Stats in brief: teacher use of
computers and the Internet in public schools. Washington, DC.
1. Only one third of public school teachers feel well-prepared to integrate the use
of computers into their teaching (NCES, 2000)
2. The goal of professional development is to help teachers make meaning of new
constructs and experiences using technology so that they better prepared to
integrate technology to support learning.
3. Based on a qualitative case study, professional developments should focus on
deepening teacher knowledge.

Transition: Effectively integrating technology requires time, support, and training that engages
the teacher to make changes to his/her pedagogy and instructional practices in order to support
student outcomes.

Professional Development
Topic Sentence: Professional development and support is critical to ensure that teachers have the
knowledge and skills to effectively integrate technology into their curriculum to enhance student
outcomes and support college and career readiness.

A. Niederhauser, D., & Wessling, S. (2011). Professional Development: Catalyst for
Change?. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(8), 38-39.
1. One of the barriers to effectively implementing educational technology is
securing adequate professional development.
2. In 1995, it was stated that most teachers have not received adequate training to
prepare them to use technology effectively in teaching.
3. On average districts allocate about 15% of their technology budget to teacher
training.
4. In 2000, based on a report from the National Center for Educational Statistics,
33% of teachers surveyed felt prepared to use technology with their students.
5. Another report by the National Center for Educational Statistics in 2009
indicated that two thirds of public school teachers in the United States received
less than eight hours of training for using technology with their students.
6. In 2009, a report also showed that 78% of teachers reported that the majority
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 108

of their training has been through independent learning.

B. Hughes, J. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in
forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 13(2), 277-302.
1. In 1999, teachers received only 5.9 hours of teacher training on integrating
technology into instruction.
2. Traditional sit and get training sessions without follow-up support have not
been effective in preparing teachers to integrate classroom technology.

C. Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272.
1. A major challenge for the effective use of technology is adequate
professional development of teachers according to the CEO forum on education
and technology, 1999.

D. Levin, T., & Wadmany, R. (2005). Changes in educational beliefs and classroom
practices of teachers and students in rich technology-based classrooms. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 14(3), 281-307. doi:10.1080/14759390500200208
1. Many times, teachers only superficially accept technology into their work, even
when technology is available in schools for students to use.
2. Without skilled pedagogical application by teachers, educational technology
cannot make school practice innovative and we will not produce educational
change.
3. It is not adequate just to train teachers to use technology but to incorporate the
technology into new pedagogical patterns based on new or modified educational
beliefs.

E. Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for
evaluating mLearning. Online Learning, 18(2).
1. The SAMR models consists of four classifications of technology use for
instructional activities, which are Substitution (S), Augmentation (A),
Modification (M), and Redefinition (R).
2. The SAMR model provides a framework for educators to classify and evaluate
technology integrated lessons and to understand how to create optimal learning
experiences.
3. The SAMR model encourages educators to use technology by providing a
framework to understand which lessons enhance learning (S and A) and which
lessons transform learning (M and R) for students.

F. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution
Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and
suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433-441.
1. The SAMR model is a four-level framework to better understand how to select,
use, and evaluating technology use in K-12 classrooms.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 109

2. This model encourages teachers to teach more in the modification and
redefinition levels, which leads to more enhanced levels of teaching and learning.
3. Dr. Reuben Puentedura, the creator of the SAMR model, and Pearson et al.’s
(2005) state that technology integration using this framework leaders to better
results.

G. Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst for change: The
role of professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
39(4), 417.
1. Teachers must understand the instructional practices and how to integrate
technology with curriculum.
2. Professional development must focus on instructional practices as it relates to
technology integration.
3. A case study of nine schools showed that as teachers became more proficient
in the use of technology, they integrated it more effectively and students took
more control over their own learning.

Transition: Opportunities for ongoing professional development can have a direct impact on
increasing teachers’ knowledge and skill to integrate technology into the classroom learning
environment.

Embedded Coaching
Topic Sentence: The rate of change in technology is rapid and consistent so teachers must
receive ongoing and various types of support to keep pace with the changes.

A. Niederhauser, D. & Wessling, S. (2011). Professional Development: Catalyst for
Change?. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(8), 38-39.
1. Teachers must be seen as learners and with many different types of teachers, it
is essential to have individualized and ongoing support.
2. Because of various types of learners such as the innovators and early adopters,
the early majority, the late majority, the laggards, only the innovators and early
adopters will be able to keep pace unless we provide alternative types of
professional development.

B. Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272.
1. According to the literature and Michael Fullan (1991), one reason that
professional developments fail is due to the lack of follow up to support and
address the individual needs and concerns of teachers.
2. In- class support provides teachers support as they attempt to develop and
implement new instructional practices.
3. Teachers need professional development that is situated in the context of their
practice; one way to do this is to conduct activities at the school site and bring
opportunities of support to the classroom through hands-on professional
development aligned to curriculum goals.
THE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TRAINING 110

Transition: Teachers must receive embedded coaching within their classroom which provides
support as they attempt to implement new instructional practices through the integration of
technology.

Administrative Support
Topic Sentence: Researchers have found that the support of site administration is essential to
successful implementation of technology in classrooms.

A. Means, B., Olson, K., & Singh, R. (1995). Transforming with technology: No "silver
bullet". The Education Digest, 61(4), 31.
1. Based on case study of nine school sites, the deciding factor in successful
implementation of technology is a school wide approach to using technology and
the support of site administration.
2. The school sites most successful in integrating technology created a
schoolwide instructional vision.

B. Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272.
1. Professional development efforts are influenced by the way in which school
administrators support or inhibit teacher learning.
2. Empirical research suggests that improvements and innovations with
technology is more likely to occur when both the principal and the teacher
worked collaboratively in adopting new innovations.
3. When administrators failed to provide teachers with an environment that
supports professional growth, the efforts of the professional development are
short-term and isolated.

Transition: Teachers are more willing to invest time and energy when they feel supported, and it
is imperative that district leaders and site administrators support the teachers by providing them
opportunities for professional learning.

Conclusion: Teachers must have the knowledge, motivation and supportive organizational
structures to successfully implement technology in the classroom to transform student learning
and prepare students to be college and career ready. This can be achieved through sustained
professional development, in-class coaching, motivation, and organizational support.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers

PDF

Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school

PDF

One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Instructional coaching, educational technology, and teacher self-efficacy: a case study of instructional coaching programs in a California public K-12 school district

PDF

Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction

PDF

Instructional coaching in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs in elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher self-efficacy with educational...

PDF

Instructional coaching and educational technology in California public K-12 school districts: instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools with educational technolo...

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Hawaiʻi public school principals' level of technology use and the meaningful integration of technology in their school

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

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

PDF

Factors influencing technology at a secondary school

PDF

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

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Computer science education in California public high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

The transference of continuous intergroup dialogue skills to the classroom by participating faculty: an evaluation study

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

Asset Metadata

Creator Burks, Jennifer Ashley (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 10/17/2018

Defense Date 09/14/2018

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

Tag college and career readiness,education,embedded coaching,in-class coaching,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,self-efficacy,technological skills,technology: one-to-one computing

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Ferguson, Holly (committee member)

Creator Email burksj@usc.edu,jennyaburks@mac.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-82355

Unique identifier UC11669048

Identifier etd-BurksJenni-6868.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-82355 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BurksJenni-6868.pdf

Dmrecord 82355

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Burks, Jennifer Ashley

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA