Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers
(USC Thesis Other)
The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 1
THE PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGY OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION:
A CASE STUDY OF SECOND-GRADE TEACHERS
by
Victoria L. Reyes
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2018
Copyright 2018 Victoria Reyes
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 2
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to three most important people in my life. To my two children,
Robin and Ryan: This is for you. You are both my pride and joy, and everything I do, I do for the
both of you. I love you both with all my heart. I also dedicate this dissertation to my mother,
Jessie Marie Reyes. You have always inspired and motivated me, teaching me the importance of
education, never giving up, and love. I share this doctorate and all its glory with all three you. I
could not have done it without you three. Thank you for your love, support, and encouragement.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 3
Acknowledgements
The dissertation journey at USC has been long and hard. Throughout the past 3 years,
there have been a number of people who inspired, encouraged, and motivated me.
First, I would like to thank my dissertation chairs for their guidance and support. I am
truly grateful for all your encouragement and guidance throughout the process. Thank you for
sharing your expertise and valuable time.
I would also like to thank all my professors. Each of you have shared your knowledge
and guided me along the way. You have all inspired me, challenged me, and forced me to think
outside the box. Thank you all for sharing your expertise.
Next, I would like to thank my fellow Trojans who I’ve met throughout my 3 years,
especially my original cohort. Throughout this journey, no matter how tough it got, we could
always rely on each other. I will never forget all the good times we had in class and I will never
forget all our laughs. Fight On!
Last, but not least, God. I love you and you are my salvation. Thank you for all the gifts
you have given me and thank you for giving me strength, even when I thought I didn’t have any
more. “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 4
Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problems 9
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 12
Limitations of the Study 13
Delimitations of the Study 14
Definition of Terms 14
Organization of Study 16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 17
History of Technology Integration 18
A Nation at Risk 19
No Child Left Behind 20
Common Core State Standards 21
National Education Technology Plan 23
California’s Blueprint for Education Technology 23
Constructivism 25
Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices With Technology 27
Barriers Associated With Technology Integration 32
Extrinsic Barriers 33
Intrinsic Barriers 36
Summary 40
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 42
Research Questions 42
Conceptual Framework 43
Research Design 45
Population and Sample 45
Instrumentation 47
Data Collection 47
Validity and Reliability 49
Data Analysis 50
Ethical Considerations 50
Chapter Four: Results 52
Methodology 52
Research Questions 53
Participants 53
Teacher 1: Janice 53
Teacher 2: Martha 54
Teacher 3: Karen 54
Background of Waterfront Elementary 54
Initial Visit at School Site 57
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 5
Data and Findings 57
Research Question 1 57
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1 62
Research Question 2 62
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2 67
Research Question 3 67
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3 70
Emergent Themes 72
Technology Positively Influenced the Quality of Student-Centered
Instruction 72
Positive Outlooks Toward Technology Integration 72
Imaginative Leadership and Building Capacity From Within 73
Culture of Collaboration and Ongoing Professional Development 73
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge 74
Summary 74
Chapter Five: Discussion 76
Discussion of Findings 76
Research Question 1 77
Research Question 2 77
Research Question 3 78
Limitations 79
Implications for Practice 79
Recommendations for Research 81
Conclusion 83
References 85
Appendix A: Survey Protocol 93
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 98
Appendix C: Matrix 100
Appendix D: Thematic Codes 101
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Educator Demographics 54
Table 2: Survey Results Addressing Research Question 1 58
Table 3: Survey Results for Research Question 2 66
Table 4: Survey Results for Research Question 3 70
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 7
Abstract
This study used the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) which attempts to
identify the nature of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in their
teaching. The purpose of this study was to understand elementary teacher’s pedagogical beliefs
and identify practices that transform teaching and learning in a technology-rich K-5
th
Apple
Distinguished Elementary School. Using surveys, observations and interviews, the TPACK
Framework was used to see if teachers integrated technology into their teaching based on their
knowledge. The themes that emerged from the study included: technology positively influenced
the quality of student-centered instruction, second-grade teachers had a positive outlook toward
technology integration, imaginative leadership fostered building capacity from within, and
the school fostered a culture of collaboration and ongoing professional development that
supported technology integration. At Waterfront Elementary, it appeared that a solid foundation
of pedagogy and content were a focus, and technology was intertwined in teaching and learning
in thoughtful and meaningful ways. This study begins to bridge a gap between teachers and
technology integration in their classrooms. It also assists schools to become successful in
integrating technology and contributes to a growing approach to fostering technology integration
and ultimately leading to a more productive classroom environment.
Key Words: 2
nd
-grade teachers, technology, TPACK, and pedagogy.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
A dramatic shift is sweeping through our schools. The signs are all around us.
Preschoolers and kindergarteners can navigate an iPad with ease. Second graders are texting on
their cell phones. Middle schoolers have Internet access and are writing and reading blogs,
communicating and sharing with their friends online. These are the 21st century learners who are
entering our classrooms today, and today’s schools, classrooms, and teachers need to be
equipped to teach them reading, writing, and arithmetic in a new 21st century way.
These new 21st century learners are highly relational and demand quick learning at a
whole new level. Students today can engage in learning in a whole new way with the world at
their fingertips, and these students need teachers and administrators to re-envision the role of
technology in the classroom. The new 21st century learner must master more than the core
curriculum to succeed in secondary and postsecondary schools, as well as in the workplace and
beyond. Long gone are the days when students practiced math facts using an online game or
when teachers lectured their students with a PowerPoint presentation. In the past, the teacher was
the focal point of the classroom, creating interactive lessons to help awe their students. A new
mindset of teaching through technology must emerge, which demands a vital shift in teacher and
student roles (Blair, 2012). Historic traditions of teacher-centered instruction to transfer
knowledge, skills, and values have dominated teaching for centuries (Cuban, 2013). Most
Americans believe that schools are where teachers teach in age-graded, self-contained
classrooms, and where students do as they are told (Cuban, 2013). However, these century-old
traditions cannot be sustained with our new 21st century learners. It is believed that teacher-
centered instruction is more effective than student-centered instruction (Cuban, 2013). Teachers
need to see themselves as a learning catalyst, orchestrating and facilitating activities that spark
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 9
defining moments for students through discovery and creation (Blair, 2012). This allows students
to become the focal point of the classroom, acting as explores and designers (Blair, 2012).
Successfully integrating technology into the classroom is key to teaching 21st century learners.
Background of the Problems
There are signs all around us that today’s education should be changing. Kindergarten-
aged children are navigating tablets; second graders are texting friends; middle and high
schoolers watch and create YouTube videos and post blogs and pictures, communicating and
sharing their ideas instantly with their friends (Blair, 2012). For all these children, simply
watching videos during class and playing mindless Internet computation games is not enough for
them to advance their learning. These new 21st century learners demand quick access to
knowledge. Students can engage in learning in a whole new way. Today’s students need teachers
and administrators to reorganize the role of technology in the classroom.
Gone are the school days when reading, writing, and arithmetic were the focus and
concern in teaching students. Teaching and preparing students to succeed in the tech world and
economy they will face when they get out of school means preparing them to use technology
effectively, productively, creatively, and safely. The four Cs—critical thinking, creativity,
communication, and collaboration—are vital skills in a technology-infused learning environment
and need to be the focus in today’s classrooms (Blair, 2012). Preparing students to become 21st
century learners involves certain skills, such as collaboration, digital literacy, critical thinking,
and problem-solving skills, which advocates believe schools need to teach in order to help
students thrive in today’s world (Rich, 2010). The new 21st century learners must be able to
master more than just core curriculum in order to succeed in secondary and postsecondary
institutions. According to the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2003), which advocates for
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 10
21st century readiness for every student, today’s students need educators to re-envision the role
of technology in the classroom. Students today need to develop critical thinking, creativity,
communication, and collaboration skills. A technology-immersed learning environment helps
students to develop these critical skills, which are vital to their learning and success in the world
beyond the classroom.
Luckily, today technology in schools seems to be something educators can all agree on
(Cuban, 2013). Access to technology seems to have grown since past years, and funding seems
to be allocated to make technology purchases in schools. However, the impact of technology on
teaching and learning seems to have come to a halt. In the past, the teacher was the focal point of
the classroom. Teachers would bookmark websites for students to practice math and create
presentations that would hopefully capture the attention of their students. Teachers need to think
and teach differently in order to meet the demands of today’s students. Teacher-centered
instruction was the focus of schools in the past, where teachers transferred knowledge to
students, and this type of “teaching” has been used for years. Today’s teachers need to act as
learning facilitators, arranging and assisting activities that spark their students’ interests. As
teachers spend less time creating presentations and more time crafting powerful learning
activities, they will discover that material is covered more in depth, ultimately promoting
retention and saving teachers time and energy (Blair, 2012). This way of teaching will allow
students to become explorers and designers and will also help educators to demonstrate to their
students that they believe in their capabilities and value their contributions to the class (Blair,
2012). Teachers need to gain confidence to teach students with technology in rich and authentic
ways, preparing them to be 21st century learners and citizens inside and outside the classroom.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 11
Statement of the Problem
Technology can provide opportunities for students to interact with peers in the classroom,
audiences outside the classroom, and with the greater world (Dukes, 2006). Technology can thus
be used as an effective tool in schools because it can allow for interaction with peers and
teachers, ultimately addressing students’ learning needs. Scholars agree that teachers’ attitudes
regarding the value of technology, as well as their self-efficacy in using technology, impact the
degree to which they will utilize technology in the classroom (Ertmer, Addison, Lane, Ross, &
Woods, 1999). When teachers believe the use of technology is valuable, they are more likely to
incorporate it into their practices (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, & Ertmer, 2010).
Teachers use technology to address professional needs (e.g., creating customized classroom
materials, improving classroom management by engaging students) and student needs (e.g.,
enhancing student comprehension, equipping students with technology skills), both of which are
related to underlying values of promoting student learning (Ottenbreit-Leftwich, et. al, 2010).
But, are teachers really using technology to address student learning today?
Although most teachers today are quick to recognize the importance of using technology
in their classroom (Roblyer, 1993), many obstacles can block implementation efforts. How
instructional technologies are incorporated for student learning has been a recent focus (Ertmer
et al., 2012). The teacher’s role in the context of technology is extremely important to successful
technology integration. Teachers may have several beliefs regarding the integration of
technology. It is critical to understand which beliefs most affect their teaching practices and the
likelihood that they will integrate technology. This is important especially when it comes to
pedagogical beliefs, which can be linked to successful technology integration.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 12
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand second-grade teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
and to identify practices that transformed their teaching in relation to the integration of
technology in a technology-rich, K–5 Apple Distinguished School (Apple, n.d.).
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. How are teachers’ pedagogical beliefs apparent in their teaching strategies that use one-
to-one laptops and iPads?
2. What perceptions do teachers have about one-to-one laptop and/or iPad implementation
and its impact on teaching and learning?
3. How does the climate of the school and its leadership support the integration of
technology?
Significance of the Study
As previously mentioned, preparing students to become 21st century learners involve
certain skills, such as collaboration, digital literacy, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills,
which advocates believe schools need to teach in order to help students thrive in today’s world
(Rich, 2010). The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2003), which advocates for 21st century
readiness for every student, believes that today’s students need educators to re-envision the role
of technology in the classroom. Teachers are essential in this effort. Scholars agree that teachers’
attitudes regarding the value of technology, as well as their self-efficacy using technology,
impact the likelihood that they will utilize technology in the classroom (Ertmer et al., 1999).
When teachers believe the use of technology is valuable, they are more likely to incorporate it
into their practices (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). This study examined teaching practices
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 13
that successfully integrated technology, with the overarching goal of making recommendations
for teaching with technology in elementary schools. It also highlighted the importance of
teachers’ beliefs related to technology integration, as well as leadership’s role in shaping the
school climate.
This study focused on the vital need to understand how to successfully integrate
technology into elementary schools. Research has emphasized that effective teaching depends on
access to rich, well-organized knowledge from different domains—knowledge from student
thinking and learning, knowledge of subject matter, and, increasingly, knowledge of technology
(Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). However, the literature on the relationships among content,
pedagogy, and technology is still particularly limited. The research does not address what
teachers perceive to be vital for their own learning experience regarding the integration of
technology. It also does not highlight the types of professional development teachers may need
related to technology. This study examined teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about technology,
the role of school climate and leadership in successful technology integration, and the types of
professional development needed to promote integration. Further, this study attempted to identify
effective instructional methods for integrating technology in the classroom.
Limitations of the Study
Due to the design of this study, there were several limitations, including the following:
1. Time was a limitation. The duration of the visit was brief and access to the school
depended on the site’s administrator.
2. This case study was only reflective of the period during which the observations were
made.
3. The sample size was small.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 14
4. Participants were only from one site.
5. The findings cannot be generalized because the study was only conducted at one school
chosen by the researcher.
Delimitations of the Study
The case study will include the following delimitations:
1. Criteria for the school selection was established by the researcher.
2. The data collection, observations, and interviews were limited to one school.
3. School site visits were arranged in a short period of time by the onsite administrator.
4. The technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework was used to
establish criteria for identifying promising practices.
5. Participants in the study were not randomly selected.
6. The generalizability of findings was limited to the school selected for the case study.
Definition of Terms
Common Core State Standards (CCSS): A set of high-quality academic standards in
mathematics and English language arts/literacy developed by a consortium of national
representatives and adopted by many states (http://www.corestandards.org/)
Constructivism: A synthesis of cognitive and social constructivist perspectives that views
knowledge as a personally constructed and socially mediated activity (Shepard, 2000).
Critical thinking, communication, collaboration, creativity (4Cs): Four critical skills
developed by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2003). These skills are needed by 21st
century students to actively participate in the increasingly digital world.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The NCLB Act of 2001 was a U.S. Act of Congress that
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which included Title I, the
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 15
government’s flagship aid program for disadvantaged students. NCLB supports and establishing
measurable goals can improve outcomes in education.
Proposition 13: Under Proposition 13, property tax value was rolled back and frozen at
the 1976-assessed value level. Property tax increases on any given property were limited to no
more than 2% per year, as long as the property was not sold. Once sold, the property was
reassessed at 1% of the sale price, and the 2% yearly cap became applicable for future years
(California Tax Data, n.d.). However, immediately after it passed, property tax receipts
plummeted and blew enormous holes in school district budgets statewide. Schools faced a huge
crisis (“What Was the Effect,” 2015).
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Content- or project-based
pedagogy that holistically incorporates science, technology, engineering, and mathematics as a
means of developing student interest and capacities in these areas (“STEM,” 2013).
Technology integration: The use of computing devices such as desktop computers,
laptops, handheld computers, software, or Internet in K–12 schools (“Technology Integration,
n.d.).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A framework for successful
technology integration that states that ideal teaching and learning with technology takes place
when teachers possess the right content knowledge, utilize the right pedagogical approaches, and
select the right technology to meet their learning objectives (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Technology-rich environments: Learning environments that actively implement and
utilize technology for a variety of teaching and learning strategies in the classroom.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 16
Organization of Study
The case study will be divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 will provide an overview of
the study. It includes the background of the problem, statement of the problem, purpose of the
study, research questions, significance of the study, limitation of the study, and definitions of
terms used in the study. Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature. This chapter highlights the
history of technology, teacher belief and practices with technology, and barriers associated with
technology integration. Chapter 3 will provide a review of the theoretical framework used for
this research. The TPACK conceptual framework was utilized in this study. Chapter 4 will
summarize key findings from this case study and examine themes that emerged from the data.
Chapter 5 will include a discussion of the findings and implications of this study for elementary
education.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 17
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Computer technologies have transformed just about every major organization and field.
Children today are born into a world where technology is deeply integrated into their daily lives.
In a national survey conducted by the Erikson Institute (2016), technology use by young children
under age 6 was found to be almost universal. In this study of 1,000 parents across the United
States, 85% of parents reported that they allowed their young children to use technology.
Television, tablets, smartphones, and computers were the most popular forms of technology. The
study also found that three quarters of those surveyed said they used technology with their child
daily for up to 2 hours or more per day. These statistics suggest that technology use outside the
classroom can potentially impact use within the classroom.
This chapter will focus on several things. First, it will begin with a review of the history
of technology integration in schools. Then, teacher beliefs and practices with technology will be
reviewed. Extrinsic and intrinsic barriers to technology integration will be discussed. This
chapter will conclude with a summary and introduction to the theoretical framework that guided
this study.
As schools move toward adopting and implementing the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), the realization that technology must become a blended part of all areas of thinking and
learning is imperative. Technology integration no longer means having a cart of laptops shared
among classrooms or a computer lab that children visit once a week. Students are being asked to
produce and publish documents, to interact and collaborate, to communicate using web tools, and
to evaluate information in multiple media formats. Truly integrating technology involves using it
as a tool for instruction including a range of presentation formats, providing technology options
for students to develop their content skills, and, most importantly, to enable students to construct
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 18
and share in new learning with these tools (Blair, 2012). It is also essential to give students time
to master technology in the classroom, which will ultimately promote success with real-world
applications. But, how can this happen if teachers and schools do not know how to effectively
integrate technology into the curriculum?
The purpose of this study was to examine second-grade teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and
identify practices that promoted a technology-rich environment in a K–5 elementary school in
Southern California. The following areas will be reviewed in this chapter: the history of
technology integration, teacher beliefs and practices with technology, and barriers to technology
integration.
History of Technology Integration
Education is always transforming to accommodate the growing demands of society. In
his book Inside the Black Box of Classroom Practice: Change without Reform in American
Education, Larry Cuban (2013) studied the problematic relationship between educational policy
and practice, particularly in relation to the use of technology. In the 1970s, during the Nixon
administration, legislation was passed that influenced education, the Education for All
Handicapped Act of 1975. The Education for All Handicapped Act subsequently mainstreamed
students with disabilities into public schools (Marx, 2011). The act required all public schools
accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education for children with physical and
mental disabilities. Schools were now left with the task of funding education and special
education with the same budget.
In the early 1980s, California voters approved Proposition 13, which significantly
reduced funding for schools (Cuban, 2013). When voters approved Proposition 13, they
drastically reduced the property taxes that were used to fund schools and local governments.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 19
Education suffered greatly because funding for schools decreased. Proposition 13 allowed
California school districts to become dependent on the state and its general fund rather than on
property taxes, which is why school districts made budget cuts.
A Nation at Risk
In 1983, the Regan administration published a report from an 18-month study that
concentrated primarily on secondary education titled A Nation at Risk (U.S. National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The state of American education was found to
be very bad and American schools were failing.
The report found that around 23 million American adults were functionally illiterate and
about 13% of all 17-year-olds in the United States could be considered illiterate (U.S. National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). It was thought that if the United States
continued to decline in education, the country would lose competitive edge in the world’s market
economy. This publication was considered a landmark event in American educational history
and contributed to the assertion that American schools were failing. The commissioner
recommended that both K–12 schools and higher education adopt more rigorous and measurable
standards and have higher expectations for student performance. The commissioner also
recommended raising admissions standards for students in higher education. Most importantly, A
Nation at Risk recommended computer science as one of the five basics to be included in high
school graduation requirements (Culp, Honey, & Mandinach, 2005). This continued to put
pressure on schools and education systems to incorporate technology into the curriculum.
In the 1990s, Internet access became a reality for schools (Sugar & Brown, 2008). In
1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act. This was the first significant
overhaul of telecommunications in over 60 years and represented a major change in American
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 20
telecommunication law (Federal Communication Commission [FCC], 2016). The goal of the law
was to let anyone enter the communications business to compete in the market and promote the
rapid deployment of new technologies. The Schools and Libraries program, otherwise known as
the E-rate program, made telecommunications and information services more affordable for
schools and libraries. Mandated by Congress and implemented by the Federal FCC in 1997, the
E-rate program provided discounted telecommunications, Internet access, and internal
connections to eligible schools and libraries (FCC, 2016). With this came the promise of
classrooms accessing information from all over the world.
During this time, Silicon Valley was emerging as a national center of high-tech
innovation, development, and production. Startup companies were developed and 20-something
year old engineers and programmers made millions (Cuban, 2013). These series of events put the
pressure on schools from parents and business leaders to adopt technology more quickly. State
legislatures and Department of Education promoted new technologies through grants and
technical support. Wireless tools became increasingly widespread in K–12 schools in the year
2000 (Cuban, 2013).
No Child Left Behind
In 2001, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was passed with overwhelmingly support
by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. NCLB was the most recent
update to the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESSA) of 1965. NCLB increased the federal role
in holding schools responsible for the academic progress of all students by putting special focus
on ensuring that states and schools boosted the performance of certain groups of students, such
as English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children
(NCLB, 2002). If schools did not comply with these new requirements, they risked losing federal
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 21
Title I funding. Under NCLB, states must test students in reading and math in Grades 3 through
8, and once in high school. States were required to bring all students to the “proficient level” on
state tests by the 2013–2014 school year, and schools kept track of their progress toward their
goals through adequate yearly progress reports. The law also required states to ensure their
teachers were “highly qualified,” which generally meant that they had a bachelor’s degree in the
subject they are teaching and state certification. NCLB included a recommendation that by
eighth grade, all students should be technically literate, and the law repeatedly referenced
technology as an important source of support for teaching and learning across the curriculum
(Culp et al., 2005). The emphasis on technology in NCLB foreshadows the need for schools to
focus on technology integration.
Common Core State Standards
In the early 2000s, every state had developed and adopted its own learning standards
specifying what students in Grades 3 through 8 and high school should be able to do. Every state
also had its own definition of proficiency, which is the level at which a student is determined to
be sufficiently educated at each grade level and upon graduation (CCSS Initiative, 2010). The
lack of standardization was one reason why states decided to develop the CCSS in 2009.
The CCSS sought out to have nationwide standards among the states including
expectations for technology use as it applies to different content areas. Thinking and
understanding information and technology is an essential part of the CCSS (California
Department of Education, 2014). These standards also give teachers the flexibility to incorporate
a variety of strategies and resources. Educators make decisions about how to address the
Common Core, meet the needs of their students, and provide opportunities to strengthen digital
skills (Burnes, 2015). CCSS call for much more from students than just possessing declarative
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 22
knowledge (Zhang, 2014). The standards call for students to be able to move further in Bloom’s
taxonomy.
Bloom’s taxonomy provides a framework for teachers to use to focus on higher-order
thinking. The framework provides a hierarchy of levels, which can assist teachers in designing
performance tasks, crafting questions for cornering with students, and providing feedback on
student work (Churches, 2009). This hierarchical model was also used to classify educational
objectives into levels of complexity and specificity. However, the CCSS called for students to
put an emphasis on analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
Integrating technology will help to engage students and give them the power to gain
deeper understanding of new learning (CCSS Initiative, 2010). The English Language Arts
Anchor Standards of the Common Core, for example, state that students should be able to
integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and formats, including visually,
quantitatively, and orally. Students are also expected to make strategic use of digital media and
visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations. In
addition, students are expected to make meaning of multimedia as consumers and see the power
of visuals as creators. The Anchor Standards also suggest that students use technology, including
the Internet, to produce and publish writing and to interact and collaborate with others. The
CCSS also ask students to gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources,
assess the credibility and accuracy of each source, and integrate the information while avoiding
plagiarism. With these new standards in place, there has been greater concentration on
technology in classroom curriculum.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 23
National Education Technology Plan
In 2015, the U.S. Department of Education released the National Education Technology
Plan (NETP) for 2016. The NETP is the educational technology policy document for the United
States, and it lays out a vision for equity, active use, and collaborative leadership, aiming to
make learning possible everywhere while also providing greater equity of access to technology.
The plan calls upon all involved in American education to ensure equity of access to
transformational learning experiences enabled by technology. The principles in the plan are
aligned with the Activities to Support the Effective Use of Technology (Title IV A) outlined in
the ESSA, as authorized by Congress in December 2015.
The NETP is broken down into five sections: (a) Learning-Engaging and Empowering
Learning Through Technology, (b) Teaching-Teaching with Technology, (c) Leadership-
Creating a Culture and Conditions for Innovation and Change, (d) Assessment-Measuring and
Learning, and (e) Infrastructure-Enabling Access and Effective Use (U.S. Department of
Education, 2015). The NETP sets a national vision and plan for learning enabled by technology
through building on the work of leading education researchers, districts, schools, higher
education leaders, classroom teachers, developers, entrepreneurs, and nonprofit organizations.
With the NETP, it can be predicted that new attention will be placed on technology curriculum in
the classroom.
California’s Blueprint for Education Technology
In April 2014, the California Department of Education published Empowering Learning:
A Blueprint for California Education Technology, 2014–2015. This was California’s attempt to
provide a vision and direction for the education system, including a focus on 21st century
learning, which emphasized meeting the needs of the whole child and rebuilding the ranks of
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 24
California’s teachers. The blueprint included 19 recommendations for California schools. It was
designed to support four educational initiatives in California: (a) implementation of the CCSS,
(b) development and deployment of new assessments (as a governing state in the Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium), (c) implementation of a statewide collaboration with the
Partnership for 21st Century Schools, and (d) implementation of Superintendent Torlakson’s “no
child left offline” vision of one-to-one computing for every student and educator (U.S.
Department of Education, 2015).
California’s technology blueprint provides recommendations for learning, teaching,
assessment, and infrastructure (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). One of the learning
recommendations was to ensure that a technology skills gap does not emerge, similar to the
achievement gap. California should work toward providing every student, teacher, and
administrator with access to at least one Internet-connected device. Another recommendation
was to enhance technology integration in classrooms throughout California’s K–12 and higher
education systems. These are just two of the recommendations highlighting the importance of
technology in education. The blueprint set a new direction for the education system in California,
with key elements including a focus on 21st century skills, the need to meet the needs of the
whole child, and a call to rebuild the ranks of California’s teachers (U.S. Department of
Education, 2015). With the blueprint focusing on these new standards and setting the direction
for the education system, it can be anticipated that technology integration will receive greater
attention in classroom curriculum.
Though all of these policy changes—A Nation at Risk, NCLB, CCSS, NETP, and
California’s education technology blueprint—sought to improve teaching and learning
incrementally, very little reform has occurred in teaching and learning (Cuban, 2012). Errors in
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 25
policymaking have contributed to the limited impact of these policies on structural and teaching
practices related to technology in schools.
None of these plans or policies have served to change patterns of classroom teaching,
even though new teaching practices have emerged (Cuban, 2013). Despite these external
interventions and standards, little has changed in the classroom with respect to technology
integration. There has been no fundamental shift from teacher-centered to student centered
instruction (Cuban, 2013). One reason why many reform initiatives fail may be because teachers
are reluctant to adopt changes that challenge their beliefs related to teacher-centered instruction
(Cuban, 2013). Teachers must change their instructional approach to ensure students succeed
with technology in their classrooms. This highlights another premise: teacher’s beliefs regarding
using technology.
Constructivism
Constructivism is an educational theory that emphasizes hands-on, activity-based
teaching and learning during which learners develop their own frames of thought (Keengwe &
Onchwari, 2011). Piaget’s notion of constructivism assumed that learners must construct their
own knowledge—both individually and collectively. Each learner has tools for concepts and
skills with which he or she must construct knowledge to solve problems. When we encounter
something new, we need to reconcile it with our previous ideas and experience, possibly
changing what we already believe, or being discarded as irrelevant. The constructivist theory
makes us active creators of our own knowledge. To do this, we must ask questions, explore, and
assess what we know. This challenges the assumption that meaning reside in words, actions, and
objects, independently of the interpreter.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 26
Teachers and students are viewed as active meaning-makers who continually give
contextually based meanings to each other’s words and actions as they interact (Cobb, 1988). In
much of the literature on technology use, constructivism has been operationalized in similar
ways. Researchers have argued that technology can serve as a catalyst for the changes in content,
roles, and organizational climate that are required for a shift from traditional to constructivist
instructional practices (Collins, 1991; Means et al., 1993). For example, a presidential report
recommended that attention should be given to exploring the potential role of technology in
achieving the goals of current educational reform efforts using new pedagogic methods based on
a more active, student-centered approach to learning that emphasizes the development of higher-
order reasoning and problem-solving skills (President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology, Panel on Educational Technology, 1997). Therefore, when teachers become
comfortable with technology to the point where they can integrate it more effectively, they use it
in ways that emphasize a more constructivist, learner-centered approach (Matzen & Edmunds,
2007).
Garcia and Pacheco (2013) conducted an exploratory case study on dimensions of
mathematics problem-solving using computer simulations with 6- to 8-year-old elementary
school children. Results indicated that the integration of computational tools into conventional
courses served to improve student motivation, collaboration, and discussion based on their own
experiences. Garcia and Pacheco stated that the results could assist education programs in
incorporating positive attitudes and knowledge creation from a constructivist approach using
technology.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 27
Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices With Technology
Technology encompasses amazing tools that can be used to provide opportunities for
students to interact with their peers in the classroom, audiences outside the classroom, and the
greater world (Dukes, 2006). Technology can be an effective tool in schools because it can allow
for interaction with peers and teachers, thus addressing learning needs such as collaboration,
communication, critical thinking, and creativity. If policies mandate the incorporation of
technology into teaching practices, then why is there not more technology use in classrooms?
Scholars agree that teachers’ attitudes toward the value of technology, as well as their self-
efficacy using technology, impact the degree to which they will use technology in the classroom
(Chen, 2008, Ertmer et al., 1999, Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik, Sendurur, & Sendurur,
2012; Parajes, 1992). Parajes (1992) stated that people have beliefs about everything and that to
conceptualize a belief system is to recognize that the belief system contains various beliefs
connecting to one another. Teachers’ beliefs about their practices are vital to their teaching
practices. Teachers’ attitudes about education include attitudes about schooling, teaching, and
learning, and students are usually represented as teachers’ beliefs. Teachers’ beliefs serve as a
filter through which they determine the priorities of different factors (Chen, 2008). When
teachers believe that technology use is valuable, they are more likely to incorporate it into their
practices (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010).
Teachers use technology to address professional needs (e.g., creating customized
classroom materials, improving classroom management by engaging students) and student needs
(e.g., enhancing student comprehension, equipping students with technology skills), both of
which relate to underlying values about student learning (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010).
Consequently, teachers may hold conflicting beliefs regarding technology integration. Teacher
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 28
beliefs regarding technology and their self-efficacy using technology impact whether they use
technology to support student learning. Teachers should implement the use of educational
technology in a constructivist manner, and they must have opportunities to construct pedagogical
knowledge in a supportive climate (Dexter, Anderson, & Beckerm, 1999). Therefore, teachers’
beliefs are strongly connected to what they do in the classroom and that includes technology
integration into curriculum.
In 1986, the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) research project began. This
project is an example of how teachers wanted to use technology in the classroom but did not
know how. The study gathered data on what happened when teachers and students had consistent
access to technology (Dwyer, Rigstaff, & Sandholtz, 1989). The study focused on five sites over
a 4-year period, from 1986–1989. The project included 32 teachers and 650 students in four
inner-city elementary schools and one high school; students came from low and high
socioeconomic statuses. The ACOT classrooms offered student access to interactive technologies
such as Apple IIe computers, Macintosh computers, scanners, laserdisc and videotape players,
modems, CD-ROM drives, and hundreds of software titles. Technology was used as a tool to
support learning across the curriculum and the classrooms were considered true multimedia
environments where students and teachers used textbooks, workbooks, manipulatives,
whiteboards, crayons, glue, an overhead projector, a television, musical instruments, and
computers. Findings indicated that in the early years of technology introduction, implementation
focused on computers and software. There was hope that technology would bring the same
successful transformation it brought in science to the education arena, but it did not. It was found
that the ACOT classrooms did transform the physical environments of the classrooms, but for the
most part student learning tasks remained unchanged. The study also found that a new pattern of
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 29
teaching and learning had emerged, including the following stages: (a) entry, (b) adoption, (c)
adaptation, (d) appropriation, and (e) invention. In this model, the use of technology gradually
replaced learning experiences for students. This research contributed to the evidence that
teachers’ beliefs about instruction and schools were an important factor underlying the
institution’s wiliness to adopt change. This study further showed that teachers were personally
dedicated to using modern technology but were indoctrinated into old principles of instruction.
Implementing change in education must include changing teachers’ practices and beliefs,
gradually shaping them by experiences in different contexts. The ACOT research demonstrated
that the introduction of technology into classrooms significantly increased the potential for
learning, especially when used to support collaboration and expression among students.
Teachers’ use of technology changed their beliefs about instruction, positively influencing
outcomes for their students.
Also, teachers who believed in constructivist teaching—the belief that learning occurs as
learners are actively involved in a process of meaning and knowledge construction, as opposed
to passively receiving information—were found to integrate technology more in their classrooms
(Ertmer et al., 2012; Judson, 2006). In general, teachers incorporated technology integration
practices that closely aligned with their beliefs. For example, teachers who believed that
technology was best used for collaboration purposes described interesting projects in which
students collaborated with local and distant peers (Ertmer et al., 2012). However, some teachers
and preservice teachers reported using computers for their own personal use at least moderately
but had varying levels of access to computers at schools and in individual classrooms; they were
interested in learning more about technology for educational purposes (Martha, 2002). Most
teachers were unaware of any educational software that could be used in their teaching and did
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 30
not use technology in many teaching-related tasks (Martha, 2002). However, they believed that
technology provided more opportunities for student choice and described examples in which
students chose to demonstrate their learning using a variety of technology tools (Ertmer et al.,
2012). Therefore, teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning and beliefs about
effective ways of teaching are related to their technology integration practices (Kim, Kim, Lee,
Spector, & DeMeester, 2013).
Teachers’ beliefs are strongly connected to teaching practices, the speed of learning, and
the source of knowledge (Kim et al., 2013). Beliefs are also strongly related to their conceptions,
which suggests that knowledge determines decision making related to how to teach in general, as
well as with teaching with technology (Kim et al., 2013). Thus, allowing choice in the selection
of technologies is a crucial condition for change. Finding leadership that can help to shape
teachers’ beliefs and provide them with scaffolding to overcoming their weaknesses is also
crucial for change (Kim et al., 2013).
Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2010) investigated beliefs that underlie teachers’ use of
technology. Data were collected from eight award-winning teachers through interviews,
observations, and electronic portfolios. Findings indicated that teachers used technology to
address professional and student needs related to underlying value beliefs about promoting
student learning. Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. found, however, that professional development
activities were lacking. They suggested that professional development focus on new technology
use; they also recommended that professional development target teachers’ value beliefs
associated with teaching and learning in their own classrooms. Further, findings suggested that
because teachers tend to develop practices based on their value beliefs, broadening the
definitions of technology integration to more accurately represent teachers’ beliefs can lead to
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 31
technology professional development that will transfer to the classroom (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et
al., 2010). Additionally, this study highlighted that teachers need to be moved toward student-
centered practices once their competence and confidence increases with these initial uses. The
study pointed out that beginning with technology professional development that aligns with
teachers’ current value beliefs may help to shape teachers’ pedagogical approaches to include
more student-centered practices.
Teachers’ beliefs may also involve viewing computers as facilitators for their teaching
practices. Dexter et al. (1999) examined the use of computers by teachers in their instructional
practices. The study included interviews with 47 teachers at 20 elementary, middle, and senior
high schools. The interviews examined the use of computers in teachers’ classroom practices.
Both traditional and reform-oriented schools in California, Minnesota, and New York were
included in the study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, which included a list of open-
ended questions. The findings indicated that teachers who had adopted more progressive
teaching practices over time felt that computers helped them change, but they did not
acknowledge computers as the catalyst for change (Dexter et al., 1999). The study further
concluded that for teachers to implement educational technology in a constructivist manner, they
must have opportunities to construct pedagogical knowledge in a supportive climate.
In 2012, Kim et al. also examined how teacher beliefs were related to technology
integration practices. This study used a mixed-methods approach to examine the extent to which
teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning affected technology integration
practices. Twenty-two out of 42 teachers were chosen from a 4-year comprehensive school
reform program funded by the U.S. Department of Education. These 22 teachers were taught in
class during the project years and participated in the project for at least 2 consecutive years. The
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 32
study’s primary goal was to improve the use of technology in poorly performing rural K–8
schools in the southeast of the United States by providing new technologies, professional
development workshops, and technical and pedagogical assistance. The study found that
teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning and beliefs about effective ways of
teaching were related to their technology integration practices (Kim et al., 2012). Second, the
study indicated that teacher beliefs should be considered in order to facilitate technology
integration, supporting findings from other studies noting the relationship between teachers’
pedagogical beliefs and technology integration (Dexter et al., 1999; Kim et al., 2013; Ottenbreit-
Leftwich et al., 2010).
Because teachers’ beliefs serve as a filter through which they determine different
priorities (Chen, 2008), there is little doubt that beliefs influence technology integration in their
classrooms. Teachers’ beliefs about their abilities to teach with technology are vital to their
success. The TPACK framework describes how teachers’ understanding of educational
technologies and pedagogical knowledge interact with one another to produce effective teaching
with technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). It is important that teachers believe they can
incorporate technology.
Barriers Associated With Technology Integration
Although teachers today recognize the importance of integrating technology into their
curriculum, successful implementation often is hampered by extrinsic (first-order) and intrinsic
(second-order) barriers. Extrinsic barriers including lack of resources, adequate training,
technical support, and time; intrinsic barriers include the teacher’s beliefs, vision of technology
integration, and level of confidence (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2007). Intrinsic
barriers are thought to be more difficult than extrinsic barriers because they are rooted in
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 33
teachers’ underlying beliefs about teaching and learning, and may not necessarily be apparent to
others (Ertmer et al., 2007).
Extrinsic Barriers
Extrinsic barriers including lack of resources, adequate training, technical support, and
time (Ertmer et al., 2007). The most obvious barrier is finances. Schools are reluctant to make
the gigantic financial commitment associated with a technology overhaul (McGrail, 2007).
McGrail (2007) found that limited space and cumbersome furniture were also extrinsic barriers
that impeded proper technology integration.
The way teachers teach is also a barrier. Teachers who hold more constructivist beliefs
are more likely to use technology (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). Means and Olson (1994) noted in
a case study of nine schools that project-based activities prompted changes in instructional roles,
whether technology was used or not. Technology use was compatible with new teacher roles,
with several teachers reporting that technology led them to give their students more control after
they witnessed what students could do. The site visits and interviews supported the notion that
technology facilitates the implementation of constructivist learning activities. When teachers see
technology modeled on constructivist, student-centered approaches, they are more likely to
utilize it (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). These findings are consistent with Cuban’s (2013)
findings, which indicated that teachers who constructed a “hybrid repertoire” of old and new
practices within the framework of teacher-centered instruction, were more likely to use these
practices in their classrooms. These patterns of instruction stress the importance of adequate
training for teachers. If adequate training for teachers is not present, then this extrinsic barrier
will continue to hinder adequate technology integration in the classroom. For example, teachers
with less professional knowledge or training and interest in using technology may need guided or
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 34
collaborative, content-specific technology learning opportunities (Hughes, 2005). Teachers with
more knowledge or training may be able to develop innovative technology-supported pedagogy
(Hughes, 2005). The importance of adequate training is vital in overcoming this barrier to
technology integration. The teacher’s role is no longer to provide students with information, but
to guide them through the process of searching and treating information so they become
responsible for actively and experimentally constructing their own knowledge (Cuban, 2013;
Hepp, Fernández, & García, 2015). Therefore, technology training should focus on the
pedagogical application of digital tools rather than on their use (Hepp et al., 2015).
McGrail (2007) conducted a qualitative study on the social and material spaces in the
context of laptop technology. Teachers’ classroom environments and instructional engagements
with laptops were examined because these practices are believed to be reflective of teachers’
current beliefs about instruction and technology. Participants in this study were part of a laptop
initiative which offered IBM ThinkPad machines with wireless connection to teachers free of
charge and to the students on a lease basis. As a part of the program, teachers and students had
access to a variety of technology. Professional development staff also trained the teachers and
students to use different types of software. In depth interviews were conducted and data were
also collected from teachers’ classrooms. Findings suggested that school administrators and
policymakers should develop a strategic plan to address the physical constraints of laptop
classrooms and adopt a different mindset about teacher professional development. Teach
development should emphasize pedagogy over technology, rather than vice versa. McGrail
added that the results could help teachers constructively re-envision both material and social
spaces around laptop technology in their classrooms.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 35
Hughes (2005) examined the nature of teachers’ learning during technology professional
development activities and the extent to which their subsequent technology-supported pedagogy
was innovative. Hughes utilized a multiple-case research design in which four teachers were
selected and all cases involved the English language arts content area. Results suggested that the
power to develop innovative technology-supported pedagogy lies in the teachers’ interpretation
of the newly learned value of technology in supporting instruction and learning in the classroom.
The study further pointed out that teachers with less professional knowledge may need guided
and/or collaborative, content-specific technology learning opportunities. Furthermore, it was
concluded that teachers with more professional knowledge may be able to develop innovative
technology-supported pedagogy by bringing their own learning goals into professional
development activities. The results from this study support the belief that the teacher’s role is no
longer to provide students with information, but instead to learn how to guide them through the
process of navigating through information so they become responsible for their own learning
(Cuban, 2013; Hepp et al., 2015).
Matzen and Edmunds (2007) examined the results of a mixed-methods evaluation of the
Centers for Quality Teaching and Learning in a K–5 elementary school in North Carolina. The
study examined the relationship between constructivist-compatible instruction and technology
use. Results from this study were consisted with Cuban (2013) and Hepp et al.’s (2015) findings
that teachers increase their use of technology in ways that are considered more constructivist,
regardless of their broader instructional practices. Therefore, merely teaching technology skills
would likely result in particularly limited technology use; however, when technology is placed in
the context of a specific instructional practice, teachers are more likely to incorporate technology
(Matzen, & Edmunds, 2007).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 36
Thus, technology integration is affected by extrinsic barriers (Cuban, 2013; Hepp et al.,
2015; Hughes, 2005; Matzen, & Edmunds, 2007; McGrail, 2007), including lack of resources,
technical support, time, and adequate training. These extrinsic barriers are closely related to the
TPACK framework, which emphasizes the use of contextual pedagogy, content, and technology
(Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Intrinsic Barriers
Intrinsic barriers involve teachers’ beliefs, vision of technology integration, and level of
confidence (Ertmer et al., 2007). They are thought to be more difficult than extrinsic barriers
because they are rooted in teachers’ underlying beliefs about their teaching and learning, and
may not necessarily be apparent to others (Ertmer et al., 2007). Therefore, understanding teacher
beliefs could help us to understand teaching practices and the reasons behind these practices,
ultimately explaining why some teachers are hesitant to integrate technology into their
classrooms.
Effective teaching requires more than isolated knowledge in content and pedagogy
(Pamuk, 2012). Concepts taught in isolation are bound to fail and become stale. While structural
changes in education occurred, shifts in classroom practices stayed the same (Cuban, 2012). If a
vision for technology integration is to be developed, then it is critical to discuss the importance
of technology-supported pedagogy (Hew & Brush, 2007). For nearly a century, reformers have
tried to turn teacher-centered classroom practices into more flexible pedagogies that include
substantial intellectual content and move toward a deeper understanding of ideas, learning
through inquiry, collaborative work, and ways of teaching that can bridge the in-school and out-
of-school worlds (Cuban, 2012). According to Cuban (2012), without a fundamental shift in
instruction—from teacher-centered to student-centered—there will be limited change in
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 37
technology integration. Finally, Cuban stated that unless teachers shift from merely delivering
information to being a guide in knowledge acquisition, then no true change can occur in relation
to the integration of technology.
Teachers need support and guidance, including skills-based technology support.
According to Shapley Sheehan, Maloney, and Caranikas-Walker (2010), teachers have a higher
level of classroom technology immersion if they work in schools with colleagues who embrace
innovation and share beliefs about the value of technology for student learning. Shapley et al.
also referred to the importance of parents in creating technology immersion classrooms. Shapley
et al. also found that districts and school leaders who supported teachers with resources and
professional development were had greater success in technology integration.
Other factors necessary for teachers to incorporate technology include classroom
management, a shared vision and technology integration plan, professional development,
principal encouragement, adequate electrical learning environments, and increased self-efficacy
(Hew & Brush, 2007). Teachers’ characteristics were associated with their beliefs and practices
(Shapley et al., 2010). Technology proficiency is found to be the strongest predictor of teachers’
classroom immersion (Shapley et al., 2010). Teachers who set goals regarding technology were
found to be more productive in integrating technology. Preservice planning also benefits teachers
via vicarious learning experiences and goal setting (Wang, Ertmer, & Newby, 2004). Though
enhanced self-efficacy beliefs did not automatically translate into the actual use of technology
among teachers, they were a necessary condition for technology integration (Wang et al., 2004).
Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs have been found to be useful indicators of the likelihood to
integrate technology (Wang et al., 2004).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 38
Ertmer et al. (2007) examined factors that enabled teachers to overcome barriers to
technology integration. This study explored teachers’ perceptions of critical intrinsic and
extrinsic factors to their success. An anonymous online survey was used to explore teachers’
perceptions of exemplary technology use. Participants were selected from five mid-western
technology educator award programs, and an 18-item survey was used, including six
demographic questions. Results from this study indicated that intrinsic factors such as confidence
and commitment were the most critical factors to effective technology integration. Overall,
teachers in this study rated intrinsic factors as being significantly more influential than extrinsic
factors in their decision to use technology. Furthermore, Ertmer et al. suggested that teachers
could potentially benefit from observing more accomplished users utilizing technology in their
classrooms.
Shapley et al. (2010) examined technology immersion by providing laptops to teachers
and students, instructional and learning resources, professional development, and technical and
pedagogical support. This was a comprehensive quasi-experimental study with 42 middle
schools (sixth to eighth grade) from rural, suburban, and urban locations in Texas. The
technology immersion model utilized in the study attempted to alleviate obstacles that previously
undermined teachers’ technology use by improving their access to classroom technology
resources. The model was found to have a statistically significant effect on teachers’ growth rate
for technology knowledge and skills.
Pamuk (2010) also revealed barriers to technology integration regarding preservice
teachers. This study was conducted with 78 preservice juniors in a semester-long course within a
computer education and instructional technology department. Multiple techniques were
employed to collect data. This study is different from the previous studies mentioned in that it
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 39
utilized the TPACK framework. Overall, the data showed that while students demonstrated a
certain level of knowledge in technology, pedagogy, and content, their ability to rely on existing
knowledge bases and their attempts to create new knowledge bases were limited. Pamuk
analyzed the core components of TPACK, finding that participants struggled with developing
new knowledge. Finally, Pamuk pointed out that lack of pedagogical experience limited the
development of appropriate technology integration approaches. Creating new knowledge based
on different teaching components can be difficult for preservice teachers because it requires a
deep understanding of core knowledge and interpretation of the teaching context and its
dynamics.
Wang et al. (2004) explored how a variety of learning experiences and goal setting
influenced preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for integrating technology into the classroom. The
study recruited students enrolled in an introduction to educational technology course; 337 out of
the 408 recruited students participated, and 208 participants were included in the final sample.
Participants completed a demographic questionnaire as well as a self-efficacy measure.
Participants then watched a Vision Quest CD-ROM and completed a post-survey including the
self-efficacy measure. Results of the study indicated that preservice teachers who were exposed
to vicarious experiences related to successful technology integration reported significantly
greater self-efficacy for technology integration than those who were not exposed to these
experiences (Wang et al., 2004). Therefore, the use of vicarious learning experiences and the
incorporation of specific goals may help preservice teachers to develop the confidence they need
to become effective technology users within their own classrooms.
The TPACK framework describes the types of knowledge teachers require to integrate
technology into their teaching practices (Koehler, & Mishra, 2007). Koehler and Mishra (2007)
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 40
extended Shulman’s idea of pedagogical content knowledge. The TPACK framework is
essentially what teachers need to know to teach effectively using technology. The model
represents three main components of teacher knowledge: (a) content, (b) pedagogy, and (c)
technology. Koehler and Mishra added that the interactions among these bodies of knowledge—
represented as pedagogical knowledge (PCK), technological content knowledge (TCK),
technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and TPACK—are equally important. According
Koehler and Mishra, the TPACK form of knowledge is a form that goes beyond all three core
components, and TPACK is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an
understanding of constructive ways to teach content. Finally, Koehler and Mishra pointed out
that technology can help students compensate for concepts that are difficult to learn.
There are some conceptual concerns, however, with the TPACK framework. One of the
concerns is the idea of separate bodies of content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, with
the assumption that expertise for subject content and pedagogy lies in different communities
(Bulfin, Parr, & Bellis, 2013). It is also believed that TPACK is not designed to be an entire
package or the full view of integrating technology (Bulfin et al., 2013). The TPACK framework
is also criticized for its lack of clarity in defining knowledge fields. The boundaries between
some components of TPACK are unclear, indicating a weakness in accurate knowledge
categorization (Bulfin et al., 2013).
Summary
The literature on technology integration in the classroom and its impact on students is
immense and never-ending. The literature covers the history of technology integration,
technology barriers, and suggestions for implementation and further study. It is important for
teachers to use best practices when integrating technology into their lessons and activities, such
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 41
as increasing comprehension, encouraging interaction, making lessons authentic, and creating a
positive learning environment for students. The complexity of teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge in the context of problem-based learning is also a contributing
factor (So & Kim, 2009). The lack of intimate connection among beliefs, knowledge, and
actions, as well as insufficient repertoires for teaching with technology for problem-based
learning seem to stand in the way of teachers using technology in their practice (Keengwe &
Anyanwu, 2007). Best practices in teaching—especially in technology—are essential for
students to become 21st century learners. Undoubtedly, teaching with technology is difficult with
many challenges and barriers. An approach to thinking about technology integrations should
encompass the three core components: content, pedagogy, and technology.
This study will use the TPACK framework of Koehler and Mishra (2009). The TPACK
framework attempts to identify the types of knowledge teachers require to integrate technology
into their teaching practices. The TPACK framework will assist in answering the research
questions, which deal with teachers’ pedagogical beliefs in their teaching strategies and their
perceptions about the implementation of technology and its impact on teaching and learning.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 42
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
The purpose of this study was to identify the practices that promoted the use of successful
technology to transform teaching and learning in Apple Distinguished Schools. The previous
chapter provided a review of the history of technology in schools, teachers’ beliefs and practices
with technology, and intrinsic and extrinsic barriers to technology integration (Cuban, 2013;
Davies, 2011; Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Chai, & Tsai, 2013; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010).
This chapter will outline the research design utilized in this qualitative case study of the
instructional practices at an Apple Distinguished School where technology integration has
positively impacted teaching and learning, as evidenced by improvements in student outcomes.
This chapter will begin with the research questions that guided this study, followed by an
explanation of the conceptual framework, research design, population and sample,
instrumentation, data collection procedure, validity and reliability, data analysis, and ethical
considerations.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand second-grade teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
and to identify practices that transformed their teaching related to technology integration in a
technology-rich, K–5 Apple Distinguished School. This study used a qualitative research method
to examine teachers’ beliefs and instructional practices. The study was guided by the following
research questions:
1. How are teachers’ pedagogical beliefs apparent in their teaching strategies that use one-
to-one laptops and iPads?
2. What perceptions do teachers have about one-to-one laptop and/or iPad implementation
and its impact on teaching and learning?
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 43
3. How does the climate of the school and its leadership support the integration of
technology?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework used in this study was the TPACK framework of Koehler and
Mishra (2009). TPACK is a framework that highlights the importance of effective teaching with
technology. The TPACK framework attempts to identify the types of knowledge teachers require
to effectively integrate technology into their teaching practices. TPACK is complex and
multifaceted, situating the nature of teacher knowledge and extending Shulman’s idea of
pedagogical content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual model for technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK).
Reprinted from M. J. Koehler, n.d., “The Seven Components of TPACK.”
TPACK will be used in this study because teachers need to have a good understanding of
their content, as well as a strong understanding of the processes required for student learning,
which assists teachers in appropriately scaffolding instruction (Koehler & Mishra, 2009).
Teachers also need to be able to choose which types of technology are appropriate to use in each
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 44
setting to enhance student learning. TPACK is a helpful framework for determining the
effectiveness of technology use in the classroom (Niess, 2011).
The TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009) involves the complex interplay of
three primary forms of knowledge: content, pedagogy, and technology. These types of
knowledge interact to form the following constructions: pedagogical knowledge (PCK),
technological content knowledge (TCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and
TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Teachers need to develop skills to look beyond the common
uses of technology and reconfigure them for the purpose of customizing pedagogy (Koehler &
Mishra, 2009). Thus, TPACK requires teachers to be open-minded, creative forward-thinkers
and lookers, who seek to utilize technology for the sake of advancing student learning (Koehler
& Mishra, 2009).
The model in Figure 1 addresses the specific purpose of this study. The TPACK
framework is essentially what teachers need to know to teach effectively using technology. The
model represents three main components of teacher knowledge: content, pedagogy, and
technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The interactions between among these bodies of
knowledge are equally important. TPACK is a form of knowledge that goes beyond all three core
components and is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of
constructive ways to teach content. It is the knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy
to learn and how technology can help compensate for some of the problems that students face.
The blue dotted line surrounding the three circles represents the context—for example, how
teaching with technology would look if you were an elementary school teacher verses a high
school language arts teacher.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 45
Research Design
Research is a systematic process by which we know more about something than we did
before engaging in the process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interpretive nature of qualitative
research best addresses the scope of the research questions for this study. I conducted a
qualitative research case study using both interviews and observations to explore technology
integration. The case study is a design of inquiry in the field, thus it was an appropriate design
for this study (Creswell, 2014). The case study provides an in-depth description and analysis of a
bounded system (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition to conducting in-person interviews, I
also participated in classroom observations. Understanding teachers’ ideals and practices,
including how they prioritize methods of instruction, may help to understand reasons for the
integration of technology.
Population and Sample
The school chosen for this case study was Waterfront Elementary (pseudonym), as it met
the study’s inclusion criteria. Waterfront Elementary is a transitional kindergarten (TK) through
Grade 5 school; the 460 students are known as the Cougars. Of the students, 95% are
Hispanic/Latino, 3% are White, and 1% are Filipino. Furthermore, 17% are English learners,
14% have been reclassified as English-proficient students, 6% have been in special education
within the past two years, and 58% are eligible for free/reduced price lunch.
In addition to a standards-based educational program, the school incorporates extensive
use of 21st century technology to facilitate instruction in Grades TK through 5, including the use
of surround sound, HDTV instructional monitors, and document cameras. Waterfront
Elementary is recognized as an Apple Distinguished School for its implementation of a one-to-
one iPad and laptop environment. Students use the web-based programs Reading Counts!,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 46
Kidblog, and STMath to compliment the core instructional program. Applications like iMovie,
MyStory, Pages, Keynote, and Educreations allow students to express their learning in a variety
of ways.
A major factor that deemed Waterfront Elementary eligible for this case study was that it
was technology-focused and designated an Apple Distinguished School because of its
implementation of a one-to-one iPad and laptop environment. Apple Distinguished Schools are
centers of leadership and educational excellence that demonstrate Apple’s vision for learning
with technology. With its one-to-one laptop program, Waterfront Elementary has built an Apple
learning ecosystem that provides students personal choice and 24/7 learning opportunities. The
school has a one-to-one iPad in grades K-5, with students in grades 3-5 having 24/7 access. All
classrooms have Apple TV, and each teacher has an iPad they use to access Apple Classroom.
Students use a variety of apps, including GarageBand, Pages, Keynote, iMovie, and iBook
Author.
The Apple Distinguish School Program is by invitation only by schools that meet certain
criteria. Requirements to becoming an Apple Distinguish School include: establishing a one-to-
one program, implementing an innovative use of the Apple platform, faculty becoming proficient
with iPads or Mac and documentation of school results. Waterfront Elementary has met these
requirements and is the leading force in their district for technology integration. Students in all
grades have access to tools in the Apple ecosystem that provides students personal choice, in
which they use them daily to research, create, and share what they are learning in creative ways.
The staff, students, families, and community all work together to create a unique learning
experience for all.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 47
Waterfront Elementary has helped strengthen literacy skills, and their scores have helped
to demonstrate the effectiveness of their work. Waterfront Elementary has a school rank of 7 out
of 10 compared to other elementary school in the area. Their average academic performance
index is 845, and schoolwide they have met their growth targets. As a leader in their district for
using the Apple ecosystem, Waterfront Elementary is modeling excellent, student-focused
technology instruction.
Instrumentation
I used multiple forms of data to triangulate, or validate, the results of the study. Different
data sources were examined in order to provide justification for the identified themes (Creswell,
2014). The following data sources were examined: surveys, interviews, and observations.
Regarding the first question, exploring teachers who use one-to-one iPads, pedagogical beliefs in
their teaching strategies will help to better understand the scope of teachers’ beliefs. In regard to
the second question, exploring whether teachers’ perceptions about one-to-one iPad
implementations is apparent and its impact on teaching and learning in the classroom and
whether these are in alignment with the teachers’ belief may help to better understand the
teachers’ belief on their technology integration in their classroom. Finally, knowing if the
climate of the school and its leadership support the integration of technology will help inform the
impact leadership has a school and ultimately the classroom. To answer all three questions, I
used semi-structured interviews, classroom observations and surveys.
Data Collection
Interviews were used because they several advantages in qualitative research, including
being able to capture information on how people interpret the world around them and when we
cannot observe behavior (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 48
I prepared an interview guide for the interviews (see Appendix A). This guide was
nothing more than a list of questions surrounding areas to explore during the interviews (Patton
2002). The interview guide was useful because it helped me to use the time available in a
purposeful way, allowing me to cover the questions relevant to my study. The interviews were
recorded on a digital recorder. The recordings were transferred onto a password-protected
computer for backup.
The interview questions were aligned with the research questions (Patton, 2002). The
guide also helped me to ask relevant probing questions pertinent to the research questions. The
interview contained questions about participants’ demographics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Background/demographic questions were asked first. A lead-in question was used to transition to
more specific questions and probes related to the purpose of the study. The lead-in question
helped to shift the conversation toward teachers’ perceptions of their teaching, learning, and
technology use. Semi-structured questions were designed to elicit how participants identified and
described important technology integration and use. Experience- and behavior-related questions
were also included. These types of questions related to the things teachers did—their behaviors,
actions, and activities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Knowledge questions were then asked. These
questions elicit participants’ actual factual knowledge about a situation (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Knowledge questions were especially relevant because they helped to inquire about how
technology was integrated into the curriculum at Waterfront Elementary. Teachers were also
asked to describe the curriculum delivered in their classroom as it related to technology.
Teachers were then asked to share the lesson plans they followed. These documents provided
concrete evidence of their curriculum decision-making practices and also provided a different
way of looking at the research questions. While the interview process explored teachers’
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 49
perceptions of technology integration, the lesson plans and observations were actual
representations of their teaching practices.
Observations were also used. The observation took place within each classroom setting.
Observational data represents a firsthand encounter with the occurrence of interest rather than a
secondhand account which is obtained through interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Observations were also used because observations are also conducted to triangulate emerging
findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observations are there used in conjunction with
interviewing and document analysis to substantiate findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
When deciding what to observe, the researcher’s purpose for conducting the study in the
first place was taken into consideration (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The theoretical framework
(TPACK), the problem, and the questions of interest determined what to observe (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Practical considerations also played a role, including scheduling and the
availability of observation times.
Surveys were also used in research because it is another way to assess thoughts, opinions
and feelings and can provide a numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a particular
topic (Creswell, 2014). The online survey software for this paper was generated using Qualtrics
(Qualtrics, Provo, UT, 2018). Qualtrics was used because it is a simple web-based survey tool to
conduct survey research and it is private to all participants.
Validity and Reliability
Ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative research involves conducting the
investigation in an ethical manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In order to ensure validity and
reliability in this study, triangulation was used to ensure credibility and trustworthiness.
Triangulation uses multiple sources of data to compare and cross-check findings from
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 50
individuals with different perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using triangulation increases
the credibility and quality by countering the concern that the study’s findings are simply an
artifact of a single method, a single source, or a single investigator’s blinders (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Using triangulation also reduces the risk that the conclusions reflect only one
specific method, allowing for greater transferability of the findings (Maxwell, 2013). Multiple
data collection methods, including interviews and field observations, were used in this study.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of making sense out of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data analysis involves what is commonly termed as coding or taking raw data and transforming
it into meaning units (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I used coding to analyze the interviews and
observational data in this study. Coding involves assigning a shorthand designation to the data so
that it can easily identified (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Coding involves interacting with the data
using techniques such as asking questions about the data, making comparisons among the data,
and deriving concepts to represent the data when describing their properties and dimensions
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The codes derived from the interviews were utilized during the
observations.
Ethical Considerations
In qualitative studies, the interaction between researchers and participants can be ethically
challenging. Steps were taken to ensure that this study was conducted ethically. Ethical
dilemmas are likely to emerge regarding the collection of data and in the dissemination of
findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ethical considerations regarding the researcher’s
relationship to participants are a major source of discussion and debate in qualitative research
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Prior to participation, I explained to participants the purpose of the
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 51
inquiry and the methods to be utilized in the study. I discussed the handling of confidentiality.
Pseudonyms were used for all participants and observations to ensure confidentiality.
Participants completed informed consent forms prior to participation. Written permission was
obtained from the principal of Waterfront Elementary and teachers provided verbal permission to
participate in the interviews and observations. During the interviews and observation process, I
attempted to remain neutral and not pass bias on teachers’ instructional methods.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 52
Chapter Four: Results
Students today can engage in learning in a whole new way, with the world at their
fingertips. These students need teachers and administrators to re-envision the role of technology
in the classroom. Educators must strive to prepare 21st century learners for success in the
workplace. Students practicing math facts in online games or sitting idly through PowerPoint
presentations are practices that should be obsolete. In the past, the teacher was the focal point of
the classroom, creating presentations for shock value in hopes of capturing the attention of their
students. Now, technology plays an important role and impact on teaching and learning. The
purpose of this study was to understand second-grade teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and to
identify practices that transformed their teaching at a technology-rich, K–5 Apple Distinguished
School. Chapter 1 presented an overview of the problem, including the statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, significance, limitations, and delimitations of the study. Chapter 2 explored
the current literature on technology as it relates to this study, including the history of technology
integration, teachers’ beliefs and practices, and barriers to technology integration. Chapter 3
outlined the research methodology of the study, including the conceptual framework. This
chapter will present the findings and emergent themes from this study in relation to the three
research questions.
Methodology
Three instruments were used to collect qualitative data: staff surveys, classroom
observations, and interviews. Data were collected over 10 days, within a 5-week period.
Creswell’s (2014) six-step process for data analysis was utilized to code and analyze data for
emergent themes. The findings were then triangulated across the multiple data sources.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 53
The survey was distributed and completed using Qualtrics. All three second-grade
teachers received and completed the surveys online. In addition to the surveys, six observations
were conducted in the second-grade classrooms. In an effort to understand second-grade
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and to identify practices that transformed their teaching. Formal
interviews were conducted with each of the second-grade teachers.
Research Questions
Three research questions guided this study:
1. How are teachers’ pedagogical beliefs apparent in their teaching strategies that use one-
to-one laptops and iPads?
2. What perceptions do teachers have about one-to-one laptop and/or iPad implementation
and its impact on teaching and learning?
3. How does the climate of the school and its leadership support the integration of
technology?
Participants
The second-grade teachers consisted of three female teachers, with one being the grade
lead. The survey included questions on participants’ age and teaching experience. Finally, each
participant completed a survey about their background, various instructional resources and tools
used in the classroom, and types of technology used in the classroom.
Teacher 1: Janice
Janice (pseudonym) has been a teacher for over 6 years. She described herself as being
proficient in her technology skills and understanding her current role as a second-grade teacher.
She started at Waterfront Elementary as a long-term sub and is now a full-time teacher in
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 54
second-grade. The technology hardware she uses in her classroom includes Apple TV, iPads, a
MacBook, a Sound System, and a document reader.
Teacher 2: Martha
Martha (pseudonym) has been a teacher for over 10 years. She described herself as being
proficient in her technology skills and understanding her current role as a second-grade teacher.
She has been at her current site for 6 years. The technology hardware she uses in her classroom
includes Apple TV, iPads, a MacBook, and a document reader.
Teacher 3: Karen
Karen (pseudonym) has been a teacher for over 10 years. She described herself as being
proficient in her current technology skills. She is currently the grade-level lead teacher for
second grade. Karen taught fifth grade prior to teaching second grade. She currently has access
to and uses a laptop, iPads, a document camera, and Apple TV in her classroom. For additional
demographic data, see Table 1.
Table 1
Educator Demographics
Age Group Number of Teachers Years of Experience Number of Teachers
25–35 years old
35–45 years old
1
2
5 to 9 years
10+ years
2
1
Background of Waterfront Elementary
Waterfront Elementary is a beautiful school, nestled up against hills. The small, friendly
community atmosphere is immediately apparent; trees, flowers, a tile mural, and painted murals
adorn the grounds. Every Tuesday, students and staff wear college shirts, emphasizing
Waterfront’s philosophy for students: “I’m going to college.” The courtyard proudly waves the
banner flags of universities around the country. In addition to the standards-based educational
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 55
program, classrooms make extensive use of 21st century technology: surround sound, HDTV
instructional monitors, and document cameras. Waterfront Elementary is recognized as an Apple
Distinguished School for its implementation of a one-to-one iPad and laptop environment.
Students use the web-based programs Reading Counts, Kidblog, and STMath to compliment the
core instructional program. Applications like iMovie, MyStory, Pages, Keynote, and
Educreations allow students to express their learning in a variety of ways. The mission statement
on the school’s website highlights its focus on technology as a vision for 21st century learning:
“The mission of [Waterfront Elementary] is to collaboratively provide a safe learning
environment that ensures students are academically successful, socially responsible, and physical
sound. We will empower families to contribute, lifelong learners, and productive globally-
minded citizens.”
Central to the mission of Waterfront Elementary is the effective integration of technology
across the curriculum. Technology is used throughout the school to effectively engage students.
Classrooms are equipped with a SmartBoard, LCD projector, document camera, instructional
HDTV monitor, Apple TV, and surround sound systems. Teachers at Waterfront Elementary use
their laptop, Internet resources, and iPad applications to design lessons, which are projected
using from iPads to HDTV monitors using Apple TV. Information is displayed in a variety of
ways by both teachers and students. The Apple TVs allow teachers to immediately display
student work in classroom discussions, including 3-D items. Tools like Socrative Student
Response System and Go Formative allow students to key in their answers with immediate
feedback in graph form, giving teachers on-the-spot assessments of student learning. The one-to-
one iPad Learning Program is in its eighth year of implementation, with all students—
kindergarten through fifth grade—participating in the program. Waterfront Elementary is proud
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 56
to note that their one-to-one program is recognized as an Apple Distinguished School and serves
as a model visitation site for school districts wishing to observe a successful technology
integration program.
The school’s population is comprised of about 460 students in Grades TK through 5 from
diverse backgrounds. About 95% of the students at Waterfront Elementary are of
Hispanic/Latino ethnic origin, 4% are White (non-Hispanic), and 1% have multiple origins.
Waterfront Elementary is a Title I school, with approximately 68% of students qualifying for the
free/reduced lunch program. In addition, 18% of the current students identify as English
language learners, 7.3% have been reclassified as fluent-English-proficient students, and 4% are
students with disabilities. Waterfront Elementary strives to function as a professional learning
community (PLC), and the framework of a PLC drives the collaborative work of the staff.
Teachers meet weekly to develop their instructional plans to meet the needs of their diverse
learners. The primary focus of their PLC work is the implementation of the new California State
Standards and refining technology integration practices. Puentedura’s Substitution,
Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model has underpinned the school’s
technology integration program, which encourages educators to move beyond simply using
technology as a substitute for traditional methodologies, and instead use technology to transform
the learning experience for students to enhance their academic achievement. Teachers learn
together how to implement technology while utilizing best instructional practices. In addition,
the PLC has developed into a systematic approach for response to intervention. All students are
given universal assessments that provide specific data regarding their learning needs. With the
support of the intervention and assessment lead teacher, students are placed in appropriate
interventions or enrichment classes for 30 minutes, four times per week. Formative data is
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 57
reviewed on a biweekly basis during data reflections sessions, which include the principal and
grade-level teams; these sessions are conducted at regular intervals to check in on student
progress.
In addition, the school has earned various awards and recognition in recent years,
including designations as a California Distinguished School and an Apple Distinguished School.
Due to its success with the one-to-one iPad program, Waterfront Elementary frequently holds
school tours for the school district. Waterfront Elementary is also the leading force for
technology integration in the district. They often hold demonstration days for other schools and
teachers to observe their technology integration program.
Initial Visit at School Site
The initial contact with the principal was through email. I shared the purpose and aims of
the study, and the principal briefly provided a background on the school with respect to
technology integration and enthusiastically agreed to participate. Once the initial agreement was
made, the researcher met with the principal in person to arrange an observation and interview
schedule. The principal introduced the researcher to the second-grade teachers via email, and
from there the researcher contacted teachers to participate in the study.
Data and Findings
Research Question 1
The first research question was as follows: How are teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
apparent in their teaching strategies that use one-to-one laptops and iPads? In an effort to
determine teachers’ pedagogical beliefs in their teaching strategies, the researcher examined the
various sources of data—interviews, surveys, and observations.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 58
The survey included questions about teachers’ beliefs regarding teaching strategies when
using technology in the classroom. Upon analysis, the teachers reported that they agree that
technology has positively impacted the quality of their instruction. The teachers also stated that
they believed that technology integration requires student collaboration, which was also apparent
in their practices. When asked about their beliefs during the interviews, teachers indicated that
they held a student-centered disposition. Both Janice and Martha reported in their survey, being
more student-centered overall, while Karen stated in her survey, she had a student-center
approach. There were, however, practices observed in the observations that reflected a slightly
less student-centered approach at times. In relation to the statement, “I believe technology is
relevant for both student engagement and student achievement,” one teacher agreed and two
teachers somewhat agreed (see Table 2).
Table 2
Survey Results Addressing Research Question 1
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
10. I believe technology has positively
impacted the quality of my instruction.
0 3 0 0
11. I believe technology integration requires
student collaboration.
1 1 1 0
12 – I believe technology is relevant for both
student engagement and student achievement.
0 1 2 0
The interviews also provided deeper insight into how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were
apparent in their teaching strategies, revealing a common thread of responses in regard to
pedagogical beliefs. For instance, Janice stated the following:
With regards to technology, I try to give them any opportunity to use it in every subject.
So, even if we are just doing our social emotional lessons where we do high points and
low points. For example, the students are asked to give one high point and one low point
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 59
of their previous day. So, what I used to do was sit in a circle and just give a talking stick
in previous schools and now that we have technology on iPads.
The importance of having a purpose for the technology and teaching with intentionality was a
focus in other conversations as well. The teachers all seemed to express in their interviews, being
student-centered in their pedagogical beliefs. This insight provided a deeper understanding of
how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were apparent in the classroom. For example, Janice further
described in an interview, an activity in which technology served the main purpose:
The students take their iPads somewhere in the room and they record themselves. We call
it your weekend update. So, they’ll go and take their camera app, use their headphones
anywhere in the room nice and quiet, and they know that they should be at a Level 1
voice because everyone’s recording, and they’ll speak into their little camera. A high
point of yesterday was this, my low point was this, and then they post it to SeeSaw. So,
for me, I am able to watch those videos later, just to kind of know my students better, and
then the parents get to see that because they have access to SeeSaw. And, the kids like it
because [they’re] blogging like their favorite YouTubers, so they love that.
In addition, Janice stated in her interview,
I believe in a student-centered classroom. I believe in all students, and all students are
capable of learning at different stages. My job as a teacher is to assist the students as
much as I can to push them to grow and learn.
This insight provided a deeper understanding of how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were apparent
in the classroom. However, there were times during the observation in which teachers led
lectures and guided students through the learning process. This was apparent in the classroom
observations when the teachers and students were using EduCreations to demonstrate efficient
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 60
counting in math. Students worked in collaboration with the teachers and other peers on how to
count efficiently. During an observation, students were guided through the EduCreations app and
given the time and attention needed to practice and demonstrate their learning on their iPads.
Martha demonstrated her pedagogical beliefs when she stated that using explicit modeling helped
her students learn. Martha further stated the following in her interview:
I think modeling explicit modeling using visuals is important. For example, charts—just
things that students can see and access—and I think technology has helped with that
aspect. I am able to use my iPad to demonstrate and model for them, and the students can
see me in real time because what I do on my iPad is viewed on the screen.
Martha described another instance in her interview in which students used technology to enhance
their learning:
For our read-aloud, when I was doing the picture read-aloud—that’s another time when
we use our iPads. We use them for science, social studies—depending on what we’re
doing. I usually pick an app that’s appropriate, that kids can use and show their learning.
We also have our interactive journal, which is called Seesaw, where students can share
their learning with one another and their parents. Just all around, in all areas, I would say
with writing; they’ll publish their work sometimes on the iPads too. In Reader’s
Workshop, they jot down their ideas and we go from post-it notes to sometimes starting
to keep that work on their iPads.
The classroom observations further exemplified teachers’ pedagogical beliefs in their
teaching strategies when using one-to-one iPads. For instance, student work was shared on the
screen. During observations, students showed their thinking on their iPads and the teacher
beamed the student response on the screen so other classmates could see what they had done on
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 61
their iPad. In another observation, evidence of technology integration and student collaboration
emerged. During this observation, students were creating an original story and then turning it
into a cartoon using the Toontastic app. Students were given the opportunity to collaborate with
their peers about their stories and share their ideas and thoughts about their thought process.
Students were also troubleshooting ideas with one another. On one occasion, during an
observation, one student was watching another student’s story on the iPad and asked how they
had utilized a certain function on the iPad. Karen went back and showed him how he had done it,
and from there watched him apply this skill to his own story. As students were completing their
tasks on their iPads, they could move on to the next task, which was clearly displayed on their
assignment sheet. Karen further explained in her interview that the technology was used for
differentiation and collaboration. Students completed their group projects as well as their
individual projects. The projects appeared to be differentiated in order to provide students with
opportunities to share their work.
In addition to differentiating for a large group of students, students were able to
participate in tasks that would have otherwise been difficult or even impossible. For example,
during a Wonder Workshop, it was observed students being introduced to Scratch Junior on their
iPads. Scratch Junior is a visual programming language designed to introduce coding skills to
children. By creating projects, the students can learn to think creatively and reason
systematically, despite not being able to read very well. The teacher emphasized to students that
the purpose of using this app was to engage students and allow them to collaborate with their
peers and share things they learned while working with the app, while also being introduced to
coding and program design.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 62
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
The findings suggested that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were apparent in their teaching
strategies when using one-to-one iPads at Waterfront Elementary. Using all three data
collections, surveys, interviews and observations, the teachers believed that technology
positively impacted the quality of their instruction. Overall, student-centered tablet use was
integrated to support their student-centered practices, which was observed on a number
occasions. It was also apparent in examining all data, interviews, surveys and observations that
the teachers believed that technology integration required student collaboration. This was
observed on several occasions in the observations and further stated in the interviews.
Teachers indicated that both student engagement and student achievement were relevant
to technology integration. Overall, teachers demonstrated their student-centered pedagogical
beliefs in regard to technology integration in their classrooms.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was as follows: What perceptions do teachers have about one-to-one
laptop and/or iPad implementation and its impact on teaching and learning? It was apparent that
the second-grade teachers had a positive outlook on technology based on their responses
regarding the benefits of technology and their overall enthusiasm during the interviews and
classroom observations.
The survey included questions regarding teachers’ perceptions of one-to-one iPad
implementation and its impact on teaching and learning. Upon analysis of the surveys, interviews
and observations, the teachers reported that they incorporated technology into their daily lessons
most of the time—at least three times per week. They also stated that they agreed that technology
has changed the way they teach in their classrooms. Further, when asked, in the survey, if
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 63
technology changes were occurring too quickly, without sufficient support for teachers, one
teacher agreed and two teachers somewhat agreed.
The classroom observations further exemplified teachers’ perceptions about one-to-one
iPad implementation and its impact on teaching and learning. Interestingly, when asked to name
specifically what technology was used daily and how it was used, the teachers all referred to
SeeSaw, EduCreations, Razkids, and StMAth. Teachers used EduCreations to demonstrate
efficient counting in math and when creating stories during writing. During math, students were
given the time and attention needed to practice and demonstrate their learning on their iPads.
During another observation, students created characters for their stories using EduCreations. In
her interview, Janice highlighted the benefits of using the apps GoFormative and BookCreator:
GoFormative is an app we use on the iPads. It is a live view of the students thinking, so
on my iPad I can see them writing in real time, responding to my questions. . . . Another
app is BookCreator. After the students write and they want to publish their book, they can
use BookCreator to either take pictures of our illustrations of their book and type the
book, or they can take pictures from the Internet and import them for pictures for their
writing. We do that mostly for nonfiction, so if students are writing a book about sharks,
they will pull all these shark pictures and information off the Internet. But, if it’s
narrative writing, they’ll take a picture of their illustrations from their work and just crop
out all the words, use the pictures for illustration, and then type their words. They love it.
It’s so fun and the experience really enhances their learning.
In her interview, Martha described her experience using GoFormative, which fostered
continuous learning and feedback:
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 64
Using GoFormative, I can write the question, I can give them actual problems, and they
can write directly on their screens. As they are writing, I can see their work because 28
little popups come on my screen and I can see all the screens writing. Based on those, I
can pick one and project it on the TV and its anonymous, so I can say, “Okay, let’s watch
this person’s thinking.” We can see that they regrouped, or I can check quickly see who
needs help, and I can go pop over to those students individually without calling them out
or without embarrassing them. I can just see that I need to go over there and help those
students. This is a great resource. I am trying to incorporate it more and more.
This story illustrated a higher level of engagement; it depicts a culture of students who value
their learning experience and interactions with their teacher during this intimate way of learning
with technology.
In her interview, Karen described the benefits of technology in the classroom. She
described a few examples in which she felt using the technology in her classroom was beneficial
to her as a teacher as well as to her students:
Students are more engaged. For example, if there is a lesson that maybe they need to
revisit, the iPad and the technology makes that available for them. Sometimes in math,
I’ll create a lesson on EduCreations and if it’s something they need to go back and review
how I taught it, they have that access to see that. Also, the technology makes assessments
easy for me to see their thinking and learning. For math, they’ll do their exit tickets and I
can see what they’ve done in real time. I can also hear what they’ve done because they
record their voices, which is their thought process. I can hear every individual, not just a
few, and the technology makes it easy and seamless.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 65
The teachers reported positive learning outcomes associated with their use of iPads in the
classroom. Janice stated in her interview the following:
I think that the student’s ability to manage themselves on the iPads is beneficial. For them
to know after they do their independent practice—after they are going to go into
StMath—they know it’s coming. They know it’s part of their routine and then they think
for themselves, having that constant practice that reinforce[es] their guided practice in
class.
Janice further discussed how technology can be used to modify a lesson based a student’s
specific needs:
We as teachers can go in on our end and hand pick lessons or tailor lessons that are
released to them. So, I can go in and know that this student needs more help—for
example, in place value—I can go into my teacher site and only select the place value
lessons, so as they are working independently they are only getting this chunk of lessons
that they need to practice.
The classroom observations also reinforced teachers’ positive outlook on technology in
the classroom. During one observation, students were using an app called Epic. Epic is a reading
app that includes videos and experiments at the conclusion of a story to reinforce material. The
students also used the app Newsmatic. Newsmatic includes one article per day and it is based on
current world events, presented in a kid-friendly format. The students used Newsmatic for shared
reading. During the observations, students worked and shared their thought processes in order to
assist other students who appeared to be struggling with the material.
In another classroom observation, technology was used to incorporate music into
instruction. The teacher introduced a new song of the week each Monday and students practiced
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 66
it each morning. The teacher distributed the song on paper, so the students had a hard copy. The
songs are carefully picked. The teacher ensured that each song has an associated book or video,
which can be played on the screen for students. For example, during one observation, the
students were learning the song “Lava.” They sang it once alone and then followed along with
the TV screen. The students appeared engaged and when the song was over, they asked the
teacher if they could sing it again. When asked about this during the interview, Janice responded
as follows:
The students love the music. It is a great way to start our mornings and when they see the
song appear on the screen, I can tell they love to see the song come to life. It’s great that I
can beam the song on the screen for the students. I try to do a song a week and I can tell it
really helps them to get in the mindset for the day. The technology I have in the
classroom makes it easy for me to incorporate this into my day.
The survey data also highlighted the impact of technology on student engagement,
creativity, and collaboration. In general, the second-grade teachers strongly believed that
technology positively impacted the quality of their instruction. When asked about technology as
a relevant component of student engagement and achievement in the survey, all the teachers
responded positively as well (see Table 3).
Table 3
Survey Results for Research Question 2
Survey Question
Strongly
Agree Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
16. There is too much technology change
coming too fast without enough support for
teachers.
0 1 2 0
18. Technology has changed the way I teach. 0 3 0 0
19. I believe that technology positively impacts
student creativity.
1 2 0 0
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 67
20. I believe that technology integration requires
student collaboration.
0 3 0 0
In addition, survey question number seventeen, which asked, How often do you
incorporate technology into your daily lessons? All three teachers responded by saying that
most of the time (at least three times a week) they incorporate technology into their daily lessons.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
Although the teachers were the first to admit that technology was not the “be all, end all”
of learning, they nonetheless maintained a very positive outlook toward technology in the
classroom. During the interviews, the teachers described experiences in their classrooms in
which technology was used to enhance learning. They also shed light on how they used
technology throughout their work week. It was also apparent in examining the surveys,
interviews and observations that the teaches believed that technology integration at Waterfront
Elementary enhanced student learning, promoted collaboration, and assisted in differentiating
instruction and promoting creativity. During the observations this was observed on several
occasions and further stated in the interviews. Overall, teachers indicated that technology
promoted a positive and productive classroom.
Research Question 3
The third research question was as follows: How does the climate of the school and its
leadership support the integration of technology? The interviews, survey, and observations
provided rich data regarding the school climate and leadership at Waterfront Elementary. In the
initial visit to the site, the researcher felt a sense of calmness and perceived the environment to
be positive for students and staff. During the first site visit, the principal discussed the campus
layout and gave the researcher a brief overview of their technology program, emphasizing
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 68
practices utilized in the second grade. The researcher was greeted warmly with smiles from the
office staff and passing teachers and students. During the remaining visits, the researcher found
the community to be friendly and collaborative.
In addition to a warm and inviting school environment, the second-grade teachers shared
their values and beliefs about the importance of technology, discussing how the school climate
and leadership support were critical to technology integration in their interviews and surveys.
The researcher also inquired about teachers’ professional development and whether it prepared
them to incorporate 21st century learning skills in their classrooms.
In her interview, Janice highlighted the importance of the principal and her role in
technology integration: “We have a principal who is very knowledgeable. She shares her
learning with us. She teaches us during our staff meeting time, and I think that has impacted us
here at our school.”
Furthermore, the data revealed a culture of collaboration among the staff. When asked
about what attributed to the culture at their school, Karen described in an interview, a Friday
event that took place. Karen shared an experience in which the principal took all of the kids to
physical education in the morning for an hour. During this time, another teacher who was more
experienced with technology, held a technology professional development. This allowed for
collaboration among the teachers and gave them time to practice with new technology to utilize
in their classrooms. Karen further stated in the interview that this really showed how staff were
supportive, helping other teachers to learn more about technology integration.
In another interview, Martha also discussed the culture of collaboration at the school:
The principal meets at least once a month with us for an hour to see what we are doing
regarding technology. Also, at least once a month, new apps are introduced, and we try
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 69
and see how [they] work. The principal really keeps us fresh with all the new stuff that is
coming out, so we can use them in our classrooms.
Teachers also referred not only to formal opportunities for professional development, but
informal ones as well. In an interview, Janice described an experience she had at “Appy Hour”:
A lot of learning came from being a part of this district and this school. We had PD
[professional development] upon PD . . . and most of them were focused on specific apps.
On one particular site day, we were learning about NearPod and we were also learned
about SeeSaw. The district has what they call “Appy Hour,” where they will invite
people, so the focus is on a few apps. This was a great experience. It allowed use to learn
new things and meet other people from the district as well and share ideas.
Another finding from the data was the sense of urgency to integrate technology into the
classroom. Janice shared the following in her interview:
We are like hyper-technology here at our school. We are the designated tech school in
our district and we have set a high bar and must set an example for other schools in the
district. But, I have heard a lot of good feedback. We also have teachers come through
and watch us and how we use technology in the classroom. Sometimes, we will focus on
one app for them a day.
The survey data also demonstrated support from the leadership. When asked if the
administration supported the integration of technology into classrooms, all of the second-grade
teachers indicated in their survey that the principal was supportive. The survey also revealed that
the second-grade teachers felt their school provided them with the professional development they
needed to integrate technology into their classrooms. The survey data also uncovered that the
teachers felt that learning new technologies was something they did not have to do on their own.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 70
The survey revealed that two of the second-grade teachers felt their professional development,
for the most part, prepared them to incorporate 21st century learning skills in the classroom,
while one second-grade teacher felt she was somewhat prepared to incorporate these learning
skills (see Table 4).
Table 4
Survey Results for Research Question 3
Survey Question Absolutely
For the most
part Somewhat Not at all
22. My professional development prepared me
to incorporate 21st century learning skills in my
classroom.
0 1 2 0
23. The administration team supports the
integration of technology into the school’s
classroom.
2 0 1 0
24. My school provides the professional
development needed to integrate technology
into my classroom?
1 2 0 0
25. My school expects me to learn new
technologies on my own.
0 0 3 0
Summary of Findings for Research Question 3
According to the surveys, observations and interviews, the teachers described the school
climate and leadership as supportive at Waterfront Elementary. The second-grade teachers felt
validated and supported in their work. It was apparent that the principal was a visionary leader
who fostered a culture of collaboration and experimentation.
In one interview Mary shared the following:
We have a principal who is very knowledgeable, who shares her learning with us…
teaches us during our staff meeting time, you know...and I think that has impacted us.
In another interview Kathy added that the climate and leadership at Waterfront
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 71
Elementary was supportive by sharing the following:
Our principal is consistent with her practice. At least once a month we have either
review of what we have done, or we kind of say ‘okay this is what we are working on in
the classroom. Having her really kind of keep us fresh with all the new stuff that is
coming out, so we can use for our class.
As stated earlier, Martha also disclosed that she felt there was a culture of collaboration at the
school by saying:
The principal really keeps us fresh with all the new stuff that is coming out, so we can
use them in our classrooms.
This culture of collaboration and experimentation could be seen among the second-grade
teachers as well as in their classrooms.
However, it is important to note that two out of the three teachers in their surveys
indicated that the administrative team strongly supports the integration of technology into the
classroom, while one teacher indicted in her survey she felt the administrative team somewhat
supports the integration of technology into the classroom. Also, one teacher indicated in her
survey that the school absolutely provides professional development needed to integrate
technology in the classroom. On the other hand, the two other teachers felt that for the most part,
the school provides professional development needed to integrate technology in the classroom.
This is worth noting because during the interviews all three teachers stated they have a principal
who is very knowledgeable and shares her learning with the teaches during staff meeting time.
They also indicated they felt the principal has impacted them in regard to technology integration
into their classroom. This discrepancy shows a conflict then what was indicted in the interviews.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 72
Emergent Themes
The following section outlines emergent themes from the data. The themes were
categorized in the following way:
1. Technology positively influenced the quality of student-centered instruction
2. Positive outlook toward technology integration
3. Imaginative leadership and building capacity from within
4. Culture of collaboration and ongoing professional development
Technology Positively Influenced the Quality of Student-Centered Instruction
The second-grade teachers at Waterfront Elementary all agreed that technology had a
positive impact on the quality of their student-centered instruction. The teachers repeatedly
emphasized the focus on teaching and learning with technology interweaved through their
instruction to engage students and differentiate learning. Student-centered tablet use for
instruction in the classroom was observed in all second-grade classrooms. When tablets were
used, they served a supportive role, helping to accomplish student-centered tasks and
assignments. However, these were not the only activities that supported student-centered
learning. Teachers reported, for instance, that written assignments such as journal reflections also
promoted student-centered learning in the classroom. One second-grade teacher referred to the
SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition) model as a lens and
common language for the implementation of her practices.
Positive Outlooks Toward Technology Integration
The second-grade teachers at Waterfront Elementary had a positive outlook regarding
technology integration in their classroom. The teachers described experiences and activities in
their classrooms in which technology was used to enhance their teaching experience. All three
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 73
teachers provided examples for how technology was used in positive ways in their classroom.
Teachers facilitated student engagement and individual support while students were engaged in
tasks. Furthermore, the second-grade teachers used technology as a tool to enhance the learning
experience without overshadowing the object.
Imaginative Leadership and Building Capacity From Within
Berrett, Murphy, and Sullivan (2012) stated that leadership is a key factor in technology
integration in schools. This was apparent in the interviews with the teachers at Waterfront
Elementary. It was apparent in the interviews that the principal was knowledgeable about 21st
century skills that students required. All three teachers expressed that the principal became a
facilitator of learning in regard to technology integration. Her enthusiasm for technology was
apparent in her willingness to provide time for professional development and learning
opportunities for teachers. The principal also provided time for teachers to collaborate and share
their knowledge about new technology apps. The second-grade teachers also discussed feeling
personally supported by the principal.
Culture of Collaboration and Ongoing Professional Development
Professional development seemed to occur frequently and was meaningful at Waterfront
Elementary. The second-grade teachers spoke highly of their professional development
experiences. They shared how professional development centered on technology integration and
how they were encouraged to use the technology in their classrooms. In addition, teachers were
given the opportunity to collaborate and share their knowledge about technologies with their
colleagues.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 74
Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge
It was apparent from this investigation that the teachers had developed their TPACK
base though ongoing professional development and reflection. Koehler and Mishra (2009)
identified the TPACK model as the basis for effective teaching with technology. They noted that
technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge are often seen as separate entities, though they are
typically interrelated. At Waterfront Elementary, it appeared that a solid foundation of pedagogy
and content were a school-wide focus, and technology was intertwined in teaching and learning
in thoughtful and meaningful ways in second-grade classrooms. Teachers emphasized the
importance of a solid foundation in pedagogy and content when offering advice for teachers
about how to successfully integrate technology. In this study, second-grade teachers discussed
the importance of starting small and reflecting on how a particular technology could enhance
instruction. With a solid foundation in pedagogical content knowledge, the teachers could then
determine how to interweave the technology and feel confident in doing so. Overall, the TPACK
framework illustrated that second-grade teachers shared a vision for teaching and learning at
Waterfront Elementary.
Summary
This chapter described second-grade teachers’ perceptions and pedagogical beliefs
regarding technology integration at Waterfront Elementary. The following research questions
were addressed:
1. How are teachers’ pedagogical beliefs apparent in their teaching strategies that use one-
to-one laptops and iPads?
2. What perceptions do teachers have about one-to-one laptop and/or iPad implementation
and its impact on teaching and learning?
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 75
3. How does the climate of the school and its leadership support the integration of
technology?
Upon analysis and triangulation of the data (i.e., surveys, observations, and interviews), it
was apparent that the second-grade teachers at Waterfront Elementary had a positive outlook
toward technology integration and its impact on their teaching practices. The teachers believed
that technology positively impacted the quality of their instruction. Tablet use was integrated to
support student-centered practices. Teachers also believed that technology integration required
student collaboration. Teachers modeled opportunities for shared learning, fostering a student-
centered approach and leading to a more positive and productive classroom. The support of the
principal, ongoing professional development, and informal opportunities for collaboration
promoted a student-oriented culture. The teachers felt validated and supported by the principal.
The principal was described as a visionary leader who fostered a culture of collaboration and
experimentation. The school continues to thrive as an Apple Distinguished School, promoting
leadership and educational excellence, demonstrating Apple’s vision for learning with
technology, and serving as an example for other schools in the district.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 76
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to understand second-grade teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
and identify practices that transformed their teaching at a technology-rich, K–5 Apple
Distinguished School. A qualitative case study method was employed to identify practices that
promoted technology integration. Three research questions guided this study:
1. How are teachers’ pedagogical beliefs apparent in their teaching strategies that use one-
to-one laptops and iPads?
2. What perceptions do teachers have about one-to-one laptop and/or iPad implementation
and its impact on teaching and learning?
3. How does the climate of the school and its leadership support the integration of
technology?
This study provided an in-depth exploration of practices at and Apple Distinguished
School. Data were collected through site visits, classroom observations, and interviews. The
findings from these different data sources were triangulated, increasing the validity and
reliability of the study. Findings from this study will give teachers and administrators insight into
the value of successful technology integration. Finally, this study identified the need to provide
ongoing professional development to teachers in order to learn essential technology practices to
support 21st century learners. A discussion of the findings, including the implications for
practice and recommendations for future research, will be provided in this chapter.
Discussion of Findings
The research questions were addressed using data triangulated from multiple sources.
Different data sources helped to improve the credibility and trustworthiness of findings.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 77
Research Question 1
The first research question was as follows: How are teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
apparent in their teaching strategies that use one-to-one laptops and iPads? Teachers’ beliefs
about their practices are vital to their teaching practices. A pedagogical belief that is more
student-centered typically facilitates the integration of technology (Ertmer, 2005). When teachers
believe that the use of technology use is valuable, they are more likely to incorporate it into their
practices (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). Scholars agree that teachers’ attitudes regarding the
value of technology, as well as their self-efficacy in using technology, impact the likelihood that
they will utilize technology in the classroom (Chen, 2008, Ertmer et al., 1999, Ertmer et al.,
2012; Parajes, 1992).
The first research question aimed to identify how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are
apparent in teaching strategies that utilize one-to-one iPads. Overall, second-grade teachers in
this study incorporated practices that reflected their beliefs. These practices ranged from student-
centered to teacher-centered practices. The study found that teachers who held student-centered
beliefs incorporated a variety of student-centered activities. This supports the contention that
pedagogical beliefs are reflected in teachers’ practices. There were times during the observations
in which instruction appeared to be teacher-centered—including lectures and delivering
knowledge to students—though these times were minimal. The technology-rich setting at
Waterfront Elementary supported student-centered beliefs and practices, a finding that was
consistent with Ertmer (2005).
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was as follows: What perceptions do teachers have about one-to-one
laptop and/or iPad implementation and its impact on teaching and learning? When teachers
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 78
believe that technology use is valuable, they are more likely to incorporate it into their teaching
practices (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2010). When teachers become comfortable with technology
to the point where they can integrate it more efficiently, they use it in ways that emphasize a
more constructivist, learner-centered approach (Matzen & Edmunds, 2007). The second research
question aimed to explore teachers’ perceptions of one-to-one iPad implementation and its
impact on teaching and learning. At Waterfront Elementary, the teachers had a positive
perception of technology implementation and its impact on teaching and learning. Several
activities were discussed during the interviews, and teachers appeared to integrate technology
with ease during the classroom observations. The teachers perceived the school climate to
promote collaboration and ownership of learning. They discussed how technology changed the
ways they taught in their classrooms. By relinquishing power and control at times, teachers
fostered student-centered practices, allowing students to guide their own learning process.
Teachers discussed how technology fostered collaboration not only among students but also with
other teachers.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was as follows: How does the climate of the school and its
leadership support the integration of technology? Berrett et al. (2012) asserted that leadership is a
key factor in technology integration in school. This was confirmed in the interviews with the
second-grade teachers at Waterfront Elementary. The second-grade teachers shared stories about
how leadership, especially the principal, was supportive of their use of technology in the
classroom. The culture of being open to new technology and apps in the classroom was apparent.
When teachers needed time to learn new apps, the principal often created opportunities to learn
and collaborate—either formally or informally—with colleagues. Teachers discussed how this
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 79
culture of collaboration and experimentation fostered a sense of community for both learners and
teachers.
Limitations
This study used a qualitative method to examine the research questions. It is important to
note the limitations of this investigation. First, the study was conducted at a specific site that had
a unique context. Conducting a case study at one site, with only one grade level, limited the
findings to second-grade classrooms at the school. Case studies are limited because they are
bounded to reality within a single context (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, generalizing the results to
all teachers in similar contexts is not advisable. This was only a snapshot of one grade level at a
single school, within a brief period of time. Participation in this study was voluntary and
participants were not randomly selected. Overall, the findings in this study cannot be generalized
to other schools and other grade levels. The findings do, however, add to the current research on
the impact of teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and their likelihood of integrating technology.
Implications for Practice
The emergent themes in this study included the following: (a) technology positively
influenced the quality of student-centered instruction, (b) second-grade teachers had a positive
outlook toward technology integration, (c) imaginative leadership fostered building capacity
from within, and (d) the school fostered a culture of collaboration and ongoing professional
development. Based on these themes, this study illuminated four implications for practice.
The first implication for practice relates to teachers’ belief systems. Teachers’
perceptions and beliefs play a significant role in their practices related to technology integration
(Palak & Walls, 2009; Park & Ertmer, 2007). Understanding which beliefs most inform teachers’
practices within technology-rich environments will continue to be an area of study in
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 80
investigations with 21st century learners. Although discerning teachers’ belief systems can be
difficult, it is vital to understanding their teaching practices (Parajes, 1992). It is especially
important to understand beliefs related to technology integration.
The second implication for practice from this study’s finding is that schools must
continue to invest in their leadership. Leadership should foster values that promote technology
integration. Waterfront Elementary continues to be a driving force in its district regarding
technology integration. The principal and teachers are fundamental in driving the passion needed
for successful technology integration. Regardless of the type of technology being implemented,
teachers need encouragement and support to ensure buy-in and willingness to learn as
technology continues to evolve.
The third implication for practice is the importance of fostering ongoing professional
development and a culture of collaboration. At Waterfront Elementary, leadership helped to
foster a culture of collaboration among teachers. Interviews with teachers highlighted the
numerous opportunities for professional development, both during and after school, and in
formal and informal activities. The principal encouraged this throughout the monthly meetings as
well. Ongoing professional development is vital to fostering this culture of collaboration.
The fourth implication for practice is that the site must continue to build upon a shared
vision and clear expectations for technology from teachers as well as the administrative
leadership in the school. It was evident in the interviews and surveys that teachers share a
common language in which to implement educational technology. However, the discrepancy
between the interviews and surveys is worth mentioning because it highlights the teacher’s
willingness to be completely truthful about the administrative leadership at the school. To recap,
two out of the three teachers in their surveys indicated that the administrative team strongly
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 81
supports the integration of technology into the classroom, while one teacher indicted she felt the
administrative team somewhat supports the integration of technology into the classroom. Also,
one teacher indicated the school absolutely provides what’s needed while the two other teachers
felt that for the most part, the school provides professional development needed to integrate
technology in the classroom. As there may be changes in teaching an administrative staff
throughout a school year, it is important for teachers to feel that their professional development
needs are met in order to understand this shared vision and buy into the expectations for
technology use at Waterfront Elementary. It goes without saying that the staff at Waterfront
Elementary may be satisfied with monetary compensation for their use of technology integration
instead of using their school funds on more technology or continuous professional development.
However, the findings from the surveys and interviews in regard to Research Question 3 would
essentially negate this theory. At Waterfront Elementary, the teachers and administrators seem
to have a common language for technology as well as the role of the teacher. The teachers all
appeared to share a notion of the teacher as a facilitator and partner in learning. Teachers
seemed to have a growth mindset about learning technology and ways to use it in the classroom.
They further seemed to value the knowledge students and themselves brought with them into
their classroom, especially with regard to technology and welcomed continual professional
development which would foster this growth.
Recommendations for Research
Four recommendations for future research will be provided. The first recommendation
relates to how schools can begin to construct themselves for technology. Waterfront Elementary
is a unique school where leadership “took the plunge” several years ago, making a long-term
commitment to technology integration. With extensive teacher training and visionary leadership,
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 82
Waterfront Elementary is now an Apple Distinguished School and a leader in the district in
technology integration. The school has taken technology integration in full force, fostering
collaboration in classrooms, installing projectors, and utilizing one-to-one iPads. What can other
schools that have fewer resources or less involved leadership do to make this commitment to
technology integration? Examining the transition process in schools with fewer resources would
add significantly to the research.
The second recommendation is to investigate access to technology in other content areas.
It is important to examine barriers to technology integration among less privileged students.
Waterfront Elementary is in a quiet suburban neighborhood. Although the population is very
diverse, it is important to examine technology integration in low-income urban schools, which
may have less access to technology.
The third recommendation is to gather quantitative and qualitative data using a mixed-
methods approach. Administering a survey to a larger population of teachers across a wider
range of grade levels may help to better identify teachers’ beliefs related to student-centered
practices. A larger survey would provide additional data on teachers’ beliefs and practices.
A fourth recommendation is to investigate the SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation,
Modification, and Redefinition) model for integrating technology. One teacher in this study
mentioned that teachers followed the SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and
Redefinition) model when integrating technology. Understanding how this model is utilized may
provide insight into teaching and learning in the classroom. This would also add to the research
on teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about technology integration.
Lastly, a replication of this study with another Apple Distinguished School would
increase the validity of the study. Replicating this study across grade levels at a similar school
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 83
would also increase the validity. Such studies would provide a larger database of schools to
reference and learn from when designing a plan for technology integration.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand second-grade teachers’ pedagogical beliefs
and identify practices that transformed their teaching at a technology-rich, K–5 Apple
Distinguished School. This study set out to examine how teachers’ pedagogical beliefs were
apparent in their teaching strategies, how their perceptions about one-to-one iPad use impacted
teaching and learning, and how the climate of the school and its leadership influenced
technology integration. Addressing these questions would contribute to the existing literature by
helping to clarify how teachers’ belief systems play a role in their teaching practices. Addressing
these questions would also assist in teacher training, principal training, and school planning
related to technology integration.
Technology has penetrated our lives in many ways. Students are surrounded by
technology inside and outside of school. The spread of social media and technology has changed
the ways educators teach, how students learn, and how teachers and students communicate.
Discovering how technology is shaping our classrooms is critical, and the best way to understand
this process may be through the instructional practices of teachers. All students deserve an equal
opportunity to engage in 21st century learning and to develop skills to be successful in school
and the workforce. The traditional passive learning model is broken and out of touch with
students’ current needs. With technology in the classroom, teachers can become advisers and
coaches, and students can become the architects of their own learning. The emergent themes in
this study included the following: (a) technology positively influenced the quality of student-
centered instruction, (b) teachers had a positive outlook toward technology integration, (c)
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 84
successful integration depended on imaginative leadership and building capacity from within,
and (d) technology integration was foster through a culture of collaboration and ongoing
professional development. All of these qualities fostered technology integration, ultimately
leading to a more productive classroom environment.
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 85
References
Apple. (n.d.). Apple Distinguished School. Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/education
/apple-distinguished-schools/
Berrett, B., Murphy, J., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Administrator insights and reflections: Technology
integration in schools. The Qualitative Report, 17, 200–221. Retrieved from
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/
Blair, N. (2012, January/February). Technology integrations for the 21st century learner.
Principal. Retrieved from https://www.naesp.org/
Burnes, M. (2015, July 1). The Common Core and digital skills development [Blog post].
Retrieved from https://www.edutopia.org/blog/common-core-digital-skills-development-
monica-burns
California Department of Education. (2014, April). Empowering learning: A blueprint for
California education technology, 2014–2015. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/documents/yr14bp0418.pdf
California Tax Data. (n.d.). What is Proposition 13? Retrieved from
https://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf
Chen, C., (2008). Why do teachers not practice what they believe regarding technology
integration? Journal of Educational Research, 102, 65–75. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.1.65-
75
Churches, A. (2009, January 4). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Retrieved from
http://edorigami.wikispaces.com/file/view/bloom%27s%20Digital%20taxonomy%20v3.0
1.pdf/65720266/bloom%27s%20Digital%20taxonomy%20v3.01.pdf
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 86
Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics
education. Educational Psychologist, 23, 87–103. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2302_2
Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer technology in restructuring schools. Phi Delta Kappan,
73, 28–36. Retrieved from http://pdkintl.org/publications/kappan/
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Kindergarten: Introduction. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Content/K/introduction
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed., pp. 65–86). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (2012). Why so many structural changes in schools and so little reform in teaching
practice? Journal of Educational Administration, 51, 109–125.
doi:10.1108/09578231311304661
Cuban, L. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in
American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Culp, K., Honey, M., & Mandinach, E., (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education
technology policy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 279–307.
doi:10.2190/7W71-QVT2-PAP2-UDX7
Davies, R. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational
technology integration. TechTrends, 55(5), 45–52. doi:10.1007/s11528-011-0527-3
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 87
Dexter, S., Anderson, R. E., & Beckerm, H. J. (1999). Teachers’ view of computers as catalysts
in their teaching practices. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 221–239.
doi:10.1080/08886504.1999.10782252
Dukes, C. (2006, May). Best practices for integrating technology in English language learners.
Retrieved from http://ell.tamucc.edu/files/BestPracticesforELL.pdf
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational Technology, Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
doi:10.1007/BF02504683
Ertmer, P., Addison, P., Lane, M., Ross, E., & Woods, D. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs
about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 32, 54–72. doi:10.1080/08886504.1999.10782269
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E. & Sendurur, P. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
and Education, 59, 423–435. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., York, C. S. (2007). Exemplary technology-using
teachers: Perceptions of factors influencing success. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 2, 55–61. doi:10.1080/10402454.2006.10784561
Erikson Institute. (2016, November 1). Technology and young children in the digital age: a
report from the Erikson Institute. Retrieved from https://www.ctdinstitute.org/library
/2016-11-01/technology-and-young-children-digital-age-report-erikson-institute
Federal Communication Commission. (2016). Universal Service Guide. Retrieved from:
https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service-fund
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 88
Garcia, I., & Pacheco, C. (2013). A constructivist computational platform to support
mathematics educations in elementary school. Computers & Education, 66, 25–39.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.004
Hepp, K., Fernández, M. A. P., & Garcia, J. H. (2015). Teacher training: Technology helping to
develop an innovative and reflective professional profile. Universities and Knowledge
Society Journal, 12(2), 30–43. doi:10.7238/rusc.v12i2.2458
Hughes, K. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming
technology-integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13,
227–302. Retrieved from https://www.aace.org/pubs/jtate/
Keengwe, J., & Anyanwu, L. O. (2007). Computer technology-infused learning enhancement.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 387–393.
Keengwe, J., & Onchwari, G. (2011). Fostering meaningful student learning through
constructivist pedagogy and technology integration. International Journal of Information
and Communication Technology Education, 7(4), 1–10. doi:10.1007/s10956-007-9067-1
Kim, C. M., Kim, M. K., Lee, C. J., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and
technology integration. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 76–85.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005
Koehler, M. J. (n.d.). The seven components of TPACK. Retrieved from http://matt-
koehler.com/tpack2/tpack-explained/
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60–70.
doi:10.1177/002205741319300303
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 89
Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, S, C, & Tsai, C. (2013). Bridging the gap: technology
trends and use of technology in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 16, 59–68.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/journal/jeductechsoci
Martha, E. (2002). Teachers and technology: Beliefs and practices. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 29, 153–170. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/j/ISSN-
0092-1815/
Marx, J. D. (2011). American social policy in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Retrieved
from http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/war-on-poverty/american-social-policy-in-the-
60s-and-70s
Matzen, N. J., & Edmunds, J. A. (2007). Technology as a catalyst change: The role of
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 417–
430. doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782490
Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C., Rems, A., & Zorfass, J. (1993).
Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Means, B., & Olson, K. (1994). The link between technology and authentic learning.
Educational Leadership, 51(7), 15–18. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 90
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher
value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student
needs. Computers and Education, 55, 1321–1335. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.002
Palak, D., & Walls, R. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods
approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 417–441.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782537
Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2007). Impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’ beliefs
regarding technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40, 247–
267. doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782507
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). Learning for the 21st century. Washington, DC:
Author.
Parajes, M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs an educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Qualtrics, 2005. 2017, Provo, Utah, USA, 2017. http://ww.qualtrics.com
Rich, E. (2010, October 11). How do you define 21st-century learning? Education Weekly, 41,
32–35. http://www.edweek.org
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Effects of technology
immersion on teachers’ growth in technology competency, ideology, and practices.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 1–33. doi:10.2190/EC.42.1.a
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher,
29(7), 4–14. doi:10.3102/0013189X029007004
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 91
So, H., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating
technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 25, 101–116. doi:10.14742/ajet.1183
STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). (2013, April). Retrieved from
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/STEM-science-technology-engineering-and-
mathematics
Sugar, W., & Brown, A. (2008). Antecedents of computer-based instruction and its current
relationship to our discipline. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve
Learning, 52(2), 59–69. Retrieved from http://aect.site-ym.com/?page=techtrends
Technology integration. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_integration
U.S. Department of Education (2015, December 10). U.S. Department of Education releases
2016 National Education Technology plan [Press release]. https://www.ed.gov/news
/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-2016-national-education-technology-
plan
U.S. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Retrieved from https://www.edreform.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/A_Nation_At_Risk_1983.pdf
Wang, L., Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2004). Increasing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy
beliefs for technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36,
231–251. doi:10.1080/15391523.2004.10782414
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 92
What was the effect, if any, of Proposition 13 on education in California? (2015). Retrieved from
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-effect-if-any-of-Proposition-13-on-education-in-
California
Zhang, S. (2014). New teachers’ implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Action in
Teacher Education, 36, 465–479. doi:10.1080/01626620.2014.977745
Zorfass, J. (1993). Using technology to support education reform. Retrieved from U.S.
Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies
/TechReforms/index.html
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 93
Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Teacher Survey
Personal Demographies
1. Which of the following age groups are you?
25 years and younger
25-35 years old
35-45 years old
45+ years old
2. How long have you been teaching?
0 to 2 years
3 to 5 years
6-10 years
10+ years
3. What is your current skill level of technology?
Novice
Somewhat proficient
Proficient
Advanced
4. What is your current role at your school? (Check all that apply)
Teacher
Grade-level Lead Teacher
Instructional Coach
Principal
District Represented
Site-based Technology Point Person
Other ________________________
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 94
Technology Inventory
5. What technology hardware do you have in your classroom?
6. What technology software is available for classroom use?
7. What is the structure in place at your school site for your students to access technology
outside of school?
Technology Policies
8. Please check all of the policies that are in place at your school site regarding technology.
Acceptable use policy
Security policy
Etiquette policy (Anti-cyber bullying, etc.)
Parent contract agreement
Student contract agreement
Technology Integration
9. How long have you been integrating technology into your daily lessons?
0 to 1 years
2-3 years
4-5 years
5+ years
10. I believe technology has positively impacted the quality of my instruction.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
11. I believe technology inegration requires student collaboraton.
Strongly Agree
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 95
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
12. I believe technology is releveant for both student engagement and student achievement.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
13. I feel I have the necessary skills needed to incorporate technology into my classroom.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
14. I believe technology is a good tool for collaboration with other teachers when building
unit plans.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
15. I believe technology positively impacts atudent creativity.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
16. There is too much technology change coming too fast without enough support for
teachers.
Strongly Agree
Agree
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 96
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
17. How often do you incorporate technology into your daily lessons?
Never
Sometimes (At least twice a week)
Most of the time (At least three times a week)
Always (Everyday)
18. Technology has changed the way I teach…
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
19. I believe that technology positively impacts student creativity.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
20. I believe that technology integration requires student collaboration.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
21. My students are more knowledgeable than I am when it comes to technology…
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 97
22. My professional development prepared me to incorporate 21
st
century learning skills in
my classroom.
Absolutely
For the most part
Somewhat
Not at all
23. The administrative team supports the integration of technology into the school’s
classroom.
Never
Sometimes
Most of the time
Always
24. My school site provides the profesional development needed to interate technology into
my classroom.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
25. My school site expects me to learn new technologies on my own.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 98
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Teacher Interview Protocol
RQ1: How are teacher’s pedagogical beliefs apparent in their teaching strategies that use 1
to 1 laptop and iPad?
1. What are your pedagogical beliefs about teaching?
2. Can you discuss examples of how you think your beliefs are reflective in your planning of
lessons?
3. What do you think are your strongest influences when teaching?
4. What types of technology do you use in your classroom?
5. Describe the role technology plans in your classroom?
6. Can you discuss how laptops/iPads are used in your classroom?
RQ2: What perceptions do teachers have about 1 to 1 laptop and iPad implementation and
its impact on teaching and learning?
1. Who uses technology in your classroom and for what purpose?
2.. What learning outcomes are associated with the laptops/iPads?
3. Where do you integrate technology in your classroom (what lessons)?
4. How do students demonstrate mastery using technology?
RQ3: Does the climate of the school and its leadership support the integration of
technology?
1. How would you describe the technology culture at your school?
2. Are there any things that has motivated you to integrate technology in your classroom?
3. What challenges have you faced when it comes to technology integration?
4. How has school leadership impacted your use of technology?
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 99
5. What kind of professional experiences or developments have influenced your integration of
technology?
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 100
Appendix C: Matrix
Theoretical Framework Alignment Matrix
Research Question Theoretical Framework Data Instrument Questions
1. How are teacher’s
pedagogical beliefs apparent
in their teaching strategies
that use 1 to 1 laptop and
iPad?
Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge
(TPACK)
(Koehler and Mishra, 2009)
RQ1: Questions 1–6
Survey Questions 9–15
2. What perceptions do
teachers have about one-to-
one laptop and iPad
implementation and its
impact on teaching and
learning?
Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge
(TPACK)
(Koehler and Mishra, 2009)
RQ2: Questions 1–4
Survey Questions 16–20
3. Does the climate of the
school and its leadership
support the integration of
technology?
RQ3: Questions 1–5
Survey Questions 21–23
Demographic Questions Survey Questions 1–8
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 101
Appendix D: Thematic Codes
Thematic Codes for Framework/Labeling Key
TPACK Framework
(Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge)
Teacher knowledge/Explaining Process
explaining technology in math
explaining technology in language arts
explaining technology in science
explaining technology in content area
Teacher Knowledge/Content Area
Math
Science
Language Arts
Content Area
Integrating Technology/Use of Tech
integrating technology in math
integrating technology in language arts
integrating technology in science
integrating technology in content area
Scaffolding Instruction w/Tech
scaffolding instruction in math
scaffolding instruction in language arts
scaffolding instruction in science
scaffolding instruction in content area
Appropriate use of Technology
Open-Minded/Creative
Technology Advancing Student Learning
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study used the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) which attempts to identify the nature of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in their teaching. The purpose of this study was to understand elementary teacher’s pedagogical beliefs and identify practices that transform teaching and learning in a technology‐rich K-5th Apple Distinguished Elementary School. Using surveys, observations, and interviews, the TPACK Framework was used to see if teachers integrated technology into their teaching based on their knowledge. The themes that emerged from the study included: technology positively influenced the quality of student‐centered instruction, second‐grade teachers had a positive outlook toward technology integration, imaginative leadership fostered building capacity from within, and the school fostered a culture of collaboration and ongoing professional development that supported technology integration. At Waterfront Elementary, it appeared that a solid foundation of pedagogy and content were a focus, and technology was intertwined in teaching and learning in thoughtful and meaningful ways. This study begins to bridge a gap between teachers and technology integration in their classrooms. It also assists schools to become successful in integrating technology and contributes to a growing approach to fostering technology integration and ultimately leading to a more productive classroom environment.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers
PDF
Addressing systemic challenges in elementary-school teacher preparation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
PDF
Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school
PDF
Best practices general education teachers implement to foster a positive classroom environment
PDF
Technology integration at a 21st-century school
PDF
How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?
PDF
Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers
PDF
Transforming teaching and learning with technology: a case study of a California public school
PDF
Transformational technology: a case study of a public middle school
PDF
A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school
PDF
Transformational technology in K-12 schools: an elementary case study
PDF
Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies
PDF
Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations
PDF
High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy
PDF
Instructional technology integration in a parochial school district: an evaluation study
PDF
Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study
PDF
The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study
PDF
Leveraging the principalship for instructional technology equity and access in two urban elementary schools
PDF
Technology integration and its impact on 21st century learning and instruction: a case study
PDF
Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school
Asset Metadata
Creator
Reyes, Victoria L.
(author)
Core Title
The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/10/2018
Defense Date
03/20/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
2nd-grade teachers,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogy,Technology,TPACK
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Crispen, Patrick (
committee chair
), Tobey, Patricia (
committee chair
), Crispen, Wayne (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence (
committee member
)
Creator Email
reyesv@usc.edu,vreyes2012@att.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-5815
Unique identifier
UC11671104
Identifier
etd-ReyesVicto-6191.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-5815 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ReyesVicto-6191.pdf
Dmrecord
5815
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Reyes, Victoria L.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
2nd-grade teachers
pedagogy
TPACK