University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

One to One Tablet Integration in the Mathematics Classroom:
An Evaluation Study of an International School in China
By
Robert Charles Pulliam

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

December 2020

Copyright 2020 Robert Charles Pulliam

ii
Acknowledgements
I cannot express enough gratitude for those that supported me on my journey of earning
my doctoral degree. Without the support and inspiration of my family, friends, professors and
colleagues, this would not have been possible. First, I would like to thank my wife Huyen for
being patient with me when I could not be a part of our family. Late night Saturday classes,
missed weekends, and countless days focusing on homework has been considerably hard for her.
It has also been tremendously hard for our children Sofia, Amanda and Ayden. I have missed a
lot in their lives, and I know it was difficult for them to understand at times. However, their love
and support kept me going strong and I am forever grateful for all they have done for me.
I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to my dissertation chair Dr. Seli. She
has been an amazing mentor and guide as she walked me through the entire dissertation process.
Her timely and expert feedback, while as overwhelming as it was sometimes, has really shaped
my writing and my ability to conduct research. I was also fortunate to have two amazing
dissertation committee members. I am very thankful for Dr. Sparangis and his instruction on
disruptive innovation—he is truly inspiring and changed how I view the world around me. He
challenged me to dig deeper and step outside my comfort zone, to observe and connect
(education) the seemingly unconnected (dark side of Macau). Dr. Phillips was vital to my
success on my on my Chapter 5 due to her tireless pursuit of perfection all while exercising
patience as she challenged be to become a better writer. I am very lucky to have had these three
professors guide me on my journey through this doctoral program.
I also need to give a shout out to the “Saturday Crew”. As hard as it was doing class from
China, you guys really kept me motivated. There is no way I could have consistently stayed
awake till 4am every Saturday for the last several years without you guys. I thank you for your
friendship, support and humor—my Trojan family.

iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 1
Organizational Context and Mission 2
Organizational Performance Status 2
Organizational Performance Goal 3
Related Literature 3
Importance of the Evaluation 6
Description of Stakeholder Groups 7
Stakeholder Group for the Study 8
Purpose of the Project and Questions 9
Methodological Framework 10
Definitions 10
Organization of the Project 11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13
Technology in the 21
st
Century Classroom 13
Influences of Technology on ELL Education 20
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework 21
Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 21
Conceptual Framework for the Study 37
Summary 42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 43
Participating Stakeholders 43
Data Collection and Instrumentation 44
Interviews 45
Interview Procedures 47
Observations 48
Observation Procedures 49
Data Analysis 50
Credibility and Trustworthiness 51
Ethics 51
Limitations and Delimitations 53
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 54

iv
Impact of COVID-19 56
Findings Related to Knowledge Influences 56
Observational Findings of Effective Integration 64
Findings Related to Motivational Influences 69
Expectancy Value During Online Schooling 73
Expectancy Value During Traditional Schooling 75
Findings Related to Organizational Influences 77
Summary 83
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS 86
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan. 96
Required Drivers 99
Organizational Support 101
Program 102
Evaluation of the Components of Learning 104
Immediately Following the Program Implementation 106
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation 107
Implications for Practice 110
Future Research 112
Conclusions 113
References 115
APPENDICIES 131
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 131
APPENDIX B: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL 135
APPENDIX C: DOCUMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL 138
APPENDIX D: CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION RUBRIC 139
APPENDIX E: EVALUATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER INITIAL TRAININGE 140
APPENDIX F: TRIMESTER EVALUATION OF TRAINING 143

v
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Goals 8
Table 2: Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment 26
Table 3: Motivational Influences and Motivational Influences Assessments 32
Table 4: Motivational Influences and Motivational Influences Assessments 37
Table 5: Participants’ Experience, Position, and Education 55
Table 6: Participants Comments About the Role of Technology in Education 58
Table 7: Participants Comments About Their Procedural Knowledge 60
Table 8: Participants Comments About Their Integration 63
Table 9: How Participants Support Mathematics Instruction in the Classroom 65
Table 10: Participants Reflective Practices in Integrating 1:1 Tablets 68
Table 11: Participants Comments About Their Self-Efficacy 71
Table 12: Participants Comments About the Expectancy Value of Technology 75
Table 13: Participants Comments About Collaboration 79
Table 14: Training and Support Participants Would Have Liked to Have Received 80
Table 15: Participants Comments About the Technical Support They Received 82
Table 16: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 86
Table 17: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 89
Table 18: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 93
Table 19: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 98
Table 20: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 99
Table 21: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 100
Table 22: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 104
Table 23: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 106

vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Interaction of Knowledge, Motivational and Organizational Influences 41
Figure 2: Example Dashboard of Level 1 and Level 2 Survey Items 108

vii
Abstract
This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to evaluate the
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting the implementation of a 1:1
tablet device integration program in the mathematics department. A qualitative research
approach was used to explore the high school mathematics teachers practices at an international
school located in southern China. The data collection methods chosen for this study were
interviews of the seven mathematics teachers, classroom observations and document analysis.
The research questions explored six knowledge, motivation and organizational influences which
hindered the implementation of this 1:1 tablet program. Knowledge influences included gaps in
teachers’ procedural knowledge of how to best integrate the device into their lessons as well as
gaps in metacognitive knowledge due to the lack of a clear reflective process. Motivational
influences included gaps in teachers’ self-efficacy and expectancy value in regard to using
technology for educational purposes. In evaluating organizational influences, gaps were
identified in training since the initial training was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and
no professional development was in place—negatively impacting the learning culture and
supportive learning environment at the school. The Kirkpatrick New World Model (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used to create an appropriate training and evaluation program for the
recommended solutions to address the gaps uncovered in the findings of this evaluation. This
training program, once implemented, will reduce the gaps identified and assist in the
achievement of the stakeholder and organizational goals.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
In today’s society, the number of English Language Learner (ELL) students continues to
rise year after year, currently makes up 9.6% of all students in the US (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2019). However, ELL students consistently have lower mathematics
performance than their native-English peers. Low performance is defined by scoring below a
level 2 (on a 6-level scale) on a mathematics assessment given to 15-year-old students from
across the globe (OECD, 2016). According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) language learners are 2.3 times more likely to underperform in
mathematics than their native peers in OECD countries, and for China these students are 4.7
times more likely to underperform (OECD, 2016) which demonstrates that this is a problem.
As the current research from OECD illustrates, when students receive instruction outside
their native language, there is an achievement gap, and this holds true for all countries studied.
At China Southern International School (CSIS, pseudonym) in China, an American school
preparing students to study at universities in the US, this problem is significant because a large
percent of the student population are ELL students—comprising of just over 70% of the student
body. The evidence highlights the challenges faced at our school by this demographic of students
in attaining the same success as their native-English peers. Using US policies to inform this
study, this problem is important to address because Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964)
requires schools to take affirmative steps to ensure ELL students can meaningfully participate in
educational programs and services. Additionally, in Lau vs. Nichols (1974), the Supreme Court
ruled that schools must provide for the development of English language proficiency for students
whose first language is not English. As an American school in China, CSIS aspires to achieve
equal access to education for all ELL students as established in these Supreme Court rulings.

2
Organizational Context and Mission
China Southern International School (CSIS, pseudonym), is a for-profit, US curriculum-
based school that is an extension of a charter school system in the US. Along with a network of
schools in the US, this charter school network has several schools throughout China and South-
East Asia. At CSIS, there are just over 1100 students from Pre-K to 12th grade. Approximately
95% of the students are Chinese nationals of which 70% are considered English Language
Learners (ELLs). The remaining 5% are children of faculty and administrators, as well a few
expatriate children who are from English-speaking countries. The school is located in a suburb of
a major city in Southern China. The city itself has over eight million people and has all the
conveniences of any major western city in the US. The mission of CSIS is to provide students
with a transformative early childhood and K-12 education with cutting-edge 21st century
curriculum, through exceptional teaching and faculty mentoring. CSIS defines a transformative
education as one that develops the skills necessary to be successful global leaders in the 21
st

century.
Organizational Performance Status
Currently, CSIS faces significant challenges in providing a transformative education to
their students due to the large number of ELL students. At CSIS, this achievement gap can be
seen in CSIS’s annual exam results. According to these end-of-year exam results, ELL students
consistently tested below grade level, and performed an average of 12 percentage points lower
than their native peers. Additionally, when comparing ELL pass rates to native English speaker
pass rates at CSIS, ELL’s perform lower by 14% on the Advance Placement (AP) Calculus
exam, 23% on the AP Literature exam, and 19% on the AP Physics exam than their native
English peers. In an effort to improve the performance of ELL students and prepare them for the
global economy, CSIS decided to implement a one to one (1:1) tablet program in the

3
mathematics department as a tool to assist ELL students with their acquisition of academic
English.
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational goal is to make a meaningful reduction in the high school
achievement gap in mathematics between native English students and their English Language
Learning (ELL) peers. Specifically, the organizational goal is that by May 2021, ELL students
will have the same performance on their end-of-year comprehensive exams and the same Grade
Point Average (GPA) as their native English-speaking peers. This goal was established by the
CEO of the CSIS school network in order to prepare all students for college abroad.
Additionally, parents have the expectation that once their students graduate from CSIS, they will
be successful in getting accept to English-speaking university as well as being successful at the
university itself. The achievement of this goal will be measured by end-of-year comprehensive
exams, AP exams, and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) exam (OECD,
2016).
Related Literature
In today’s 21st century, mathematics education has never been more important for
gaining access to a multitude of jobs so developing these skills is vital for student success
(NCTM, 2019). Additionally, students who are highly capable in mathematics are creative
problem solvers, assertive, and have the numerical and quantitative aptitudes highly sought by
universities (Ofsted, 2012). However, for Chinese ELLs, their limited English ability presents a
considerable challenge to their learning due to the vast differences in writing, grammar and
thought (Chu et al., 2013). Furthermore, due to coming from a Confucianism background,
Chinese students have the belief that education is being teacher-centered. However, in American
schools such as CSIS, educators are focused on creating student-centered learning environments.

4
These differences pose great challenges for reducing the achievement gap between Chinese
ELLs and their native English peers.
According to the US National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2019), modern
reforms in mathematics instruction include creating mathematical discourse, constructing and
critiquing mathematical reasoning, developing mathematical strategies and attending to
mathematical precision. In order for ELLs to rise to the challenge of this discourse rich
environment, language skills are an essential ingredient to their academic success. Mathematical
word problems often include complicated expressions and phrases with a significant amount of
academic-English which are often difficult for ELLs to understand (Schleppegrell, 2007).
Moschkovich (2017) discovered that ELLs face additional due to the complexity of vocabulary,
mathematics specific language patterns, and methods of argumentation. Moloney-Egnatios et al.
(2014) were able to determine that the main loss of communication arose because of the
significant differences between English and Chinese language patterns. While the challenges of
mathematics discourse are well documented in research, Chinese ELLs face additional and
significant headwinds while participating in classroom discussion and working with their peers.
According to the US National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2019), an essential
component of mathematics learning is for students to communicate their mathematical thinking
coherently and clearly to peers, teachers and others. This communication includes organizing and
consolidating their mathematical thinking as well as evaluating and critiquing the mathematical
thinking and strategies of others (NCTM, 2019). However, for Chinese ELLs, who influenced by
Confucianism which promotes respect for teachers, humility, submission, and being a passive
learner finds the student-centered classroom to be significantly challenging. Gist (2014)
summarized the teaching practices in China as one that focus on the complete, unquestioned and
absolute receiving of academic information, so engaging in questioning and answering

5
communication with their teachers is a significant challenge to their ideology. For Chinese
students expressing one’s knowledge or engaging in debate is thought to be a lack humility that
is looked down upon in the Chinese culture (Greene, 2014). Durden et al. (2014) stated that
Chinese students are influenced by the principles of conformity and producing harmony within
the classroom. These cultural beliefs coupled with low English proficiency create significant
obstacles in closing the mathematics achievement gap for Chinese ELLs as well as produce a
unique learning environment that is different from their native peers.
According to Runnalls (2018), ELL students may perceive the learning environment as
less welcoming or meaningful, particularly if they struggle to contribute to discussions—
potentially influencing their beliefs about themselves and their mathematical abilities.
Additionally, Kearsley et al. (2015) stated that one of the significant differences is that American
teachers work to develop students’ creative and critical thinking abilities, whereas, Chinese
educators focus on students’ ability to memorize and acquire knowledge. This poses unique
challenges for ELL students in classroom at CSIS since the teachers are western and the
curriculum is from the US. Even though CSIS students live in China, they receive an authentic
western educational experience. Lucas et al. (2013) asserted that these vast differences in
classroom environments created incredible challenges for Chinese students in particular. Scott et
al. (2014) also supported this notion that Chinese ELLs extremely struggled to adapt to the
different form of education. Consequently, these struggles must be addressed and overcome in
order to make progress in closing the mathematics achievement gap.
Over the past 15 years, there has been a positive reduction in the mathematics
achievement gap between black-white, and Hispanic-white student populations; however, ELL
students from all demographics, including Chinese ELLs, are falling further behind their native
peers in mathematics achievement (Runnalls, 2018). The challenge of making mathematics

6
understandable to ELLs has caused both teachers and researchers alike to question how to
address this problem (Abedi, 2005; Wolf Kao et al., 2012). While there is no easy solution to this
achievement gap, teachers and researchers are looking towards technology to improve classroom
practices, ELL support, and make content accessible to ELLs (Runnalls, 2018). To meet these
language demands, researchers are embracing the belief that technology can be used to reduce
the achievement gap between ELL and native English-speaking students (Grant et al., 2014;
Kearsley et al., 2015). However, Runnalls (2018) cautioned that further research is necessary
since there is limited of knowledge of how to best motivate ELLs learning and development.
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to examine CSIS’s performance in relationship to their goal of reducing
the achievement gap in the high school mathematics classroom to ensure all students have equal
access to the curriculum. As CSIS seeks to provide a transformative education to all students, it
is imperative to implement change efforts that make a meaningful and positive impact on the
mathematics achievement gap. According to Carnoy et al. (2017), Asian ELL students are falling
further behind their native peers in mathematics achievement and this widening gap will have
serious implications for these students’ future. However, educators and researchers alike have
shown that the strategic use of technological tools and translation features can enhance learning
of mathematical procedures and skills as well as the development of advanced mathematical
proficiencies, such as reasoning, problem solving, justifying results (Gadanidis et al., 2010;
Kastberg et al., 2005; Nelson et al., 2009; Pierce & Stacey, 2010). Evaluating this technology
integration program can help CSIS explore their capacity to implement effective instructional
strategies which deepen students’ mathematical knowledge, allow for differentiation and its
effectiveness in reducing the ELL achievement gap. With effective technology infused lessons,
ELL students can experience greater success in mathematics, overcome language difficulties,

7
and expand their opportunities for studying abroad, all of which profoundly impact future
success.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Five stakeholder groups contribute to the successful reduction in the mathematics
achievement gap. These stakeholder groups include the administration, trainers, mathematics
teachers, students and school technical support. The administration is responsible for ensuring
the infrastructure and training support are in place to support the faculty in making progress
towards reducing the achievement gap. Additionally, they provide a forum to collect feedback
from teachers and work to address any issues that come up. Furthermore, the administration will
assemble a team of trainers from both the teaching staff and IT department based on their
experience of using tablet devices. These trainers will be responsible for leading professional
development meetings on how to integrate the devices into the mathematics curriculum and
addressing any technical issues that come up. The mathematics teachers began implementing the
new technology infused pedagogical practices in mid-March 2020 which are designed to support
ELLs and are responsible for their curriculum. Furthermore, teachers support students by
providing differentiated instruction through the use of 1:1 tablet devices in order to make the
mathematics content more accessible to ELL students. The students are responsible for learning
how to use the tablets, collaborating with their peers and teachers on the LMS and will be
required to submit all their assignments digitally. The school technical support staff is
responsible for setting up the tablet devices and ensuring successful integration with the school
LMS.

8
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Goals
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although many stakeholders contribute to the technology implementation program, for
practical purposes, this study focused on the mathematics teachers since they are responsible for
the day to day success of the program. This implementation program began on March 2020 and
this study evaluated the teachers’ knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences related
to this effort. At CSIS, there are seven high school mathematics teachers from North America,
England and New Zealand. On average they teach five 50-minute periods in classes ranging from
18 to 25 students. Of the seven teachers, three have bachelor’s degrees, three have master’s
degrees and one has their PhD. In this study, it is important to explore the degree to which
teachers have been successful in implementing 1:1 tablet program and the impact it has had on
reducing the ELL mathematics achievement gap. The stakeholders’ goal is that a 1:1 tablet
Organizational Mission
The mission of China Southern International School (CSIS) is to provide students with a
transformative K-12 education, with cutting-edge curriculum through exceptional teaching and
faculty mentoring.
Organizational Performance Goal
By May 2021, ELL students will have the same performance on their end of year
comprehensive exams and the same GPA as their native English-speaking peers.
Stakeholder Goal
By May 2020, 100% of mathematics teachers will fully integrate the 1:1 tablet devices into
their daily curriculum and instruction to support ELL students.

9
integration program will be successfully implemented in the mathematics department to support
ELL students by May of 2020. Successful integration is defined as teachers implementing tablets
in the lessons on a daily basis to support ELL students, developing ELL supported lessons,
assigning and grading classwork on the tablets, and collaborating with students on the Learning
Management System (LMS). The administration has established a quarterly review process
which will track the quality of technology infused instruction and will also provide a venue to
address teacher feedback. Failure to accomplish this goal will result in a significant waste of
financial resources, such as the $127,500 for 300 tablets as well as $22,400 in Professional
Development costs.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of the project is to explore the degree to which CSIS has the capacity to
achieve the organizational goal by May 2021, that states ELL students will have the same
performance on their end of year comprehensive exams and the same GPA as their native peers.
While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all the stakeholders, for practical
purposes, the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis are the mathematics teachers and their
capacity to implement the 1:1 tablet program in the high school mathematics department to
support ELL students. The analysis focused on their knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences. The questions that guided the exploratory study are the following:
1. What is the math teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to fully integrating the 1:1
tablet devices into their daily curriculum and instruction?
2. How does school culture and context either support or hinder teachers’ capacity to fully
integrate the 1:1 tablet devices into their daily curriculum and instruction?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions?

10
Methodological Framework
This study used a qualitative case study approach to uncover the knowledge, motivational
and organizational influences that contribute or hinder teachers’ capacity to integrate technology
in CSIS’s high school mathematics department. This method was chosen due to the exploratory
nature of the study, the role of the research as a key instrument and the end product being richly
descriptive (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Locke, 2010). Creswell (2014) asserted that a qualitative
method provides an ideal avenue for exploring variables that may not be known yet. In the case
of this study, qualitative methods were applied to uncovering the teachers’ technology
integration practices. In this study, data was collected through a variety of methods: interviews
with the mathematics department to which all seven mathematics teachers were invited to
participate, document examinations of school technology policies and professional development,
and classroom observations. By using multiple sources to triangulate data, Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) stated that the credibility and trustworthiness of the study can be improved. Furthermore,
according to Creswell (2014), if themes were established based on converging several sources of
data then the trustworthiness, authenticity and credibility of the study is enhanced. Finally, this
study used a prior knowledge, motivation and organizational influences’ lens to analyze data
about factors that contribute and detract from successful technology integration all while
remaining open to inductive data examination as well.
Definitions
21st century skills: The technological skills, knowledge, and expertise that students need
for university and the global work force.
Achievement gap: The disparity between academic performance by one group of students
and that of another group that, over time, is statically significantly different. Traditionally,

11
characteristics such as gender, race, ethnicity, language, and socioeconomic status are used to
identify particular groups (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2015).
English Language Learner (ELL): Is a student who speaks another language at home and
have not yet acquired sufficient skills in listening, reading, speaking and/or writing in English to
acquire or demonstrate their content area knowledge.
Notability: Is an iPad application that is used for taking digital notes, and recoding voice
memos. In this study it is often used by mathematics teachers to present content to students by
displaying the iPad screen on a digital whiteboard.
1:1 (one to one) tablet integration: The practice of providing each student with their own
tablet device to be used in the classroom and at home.
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA): A triennial international
assessment that measures reading, math, and science of 15-year-old students.
(http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/).
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).
Organization of the Project
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One presents an introduction to
the study which includes the organizational context and mission, performance status, importance
of the study, organizational and stakeholder performance goals, stakeholder groups, research
questions, methodological framework, and definitions of key terms. Chapter Two is a review of
the literature related to technology in the classroom including the background and history,
teacher self-efficacy, professional development, and the Technological Pedagogical Content

12
(TPACK) framework. This chapter also discusses the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that impact successful implementation of the 1:1 tablets in mathematics classrooms.
Chapter Three describes the research methodology of this qualitative case study, including the
research questions, research design, conceptual model, sample and population, data collection
instruments and methods, and how the study addresses credibility and trustworthiness. Chapter
Four presents a description of the findings at CSIS related to the research questions. Finally,
Chapter Five provides a discussion and analysis of the findings, implications for practice and
recommendations.

13
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review examined the current research in implementing a 1:1 tablet
program in high school mathematics classrooms. The first section begins by examining the
technology in the 21
st
century mathematics classroom. This is followed by an overview of
literature about teachers’ perceptions of technology, and in particular, how self-efficacy,
ideology and professional development impact technology implementation. The second section
reviews the theoretical framework which provides a process on how to examine a technology
implementation effort. The last section used the knowledge, motivation, and organization
framework provided by Clark and Estes (2008) to review the influences on the teachers’ ability
to implement the 1:1 tablet program at the China Southern International School.
Technology in the 21
st
Century Classroom
As schools continue to embrace technology in the classroom to prepare students for the
21
st
century, there is an increasing need to fully understand the impact on pedagogy as well as
student learning and achievement. According to Koehler and Mishra (2014), one of the primary
challenges teachers face when it comes to technology integration is that they earned degrees at a
time when educational technology was at a very different stage of development than it is today,
resulting in a gap in pedagogical skills. When teachers do not receive the proper professional
development and hands-on experience, they display negative attitudes towards using 1:1 tablets
in their classrooms, which in turn negatively affects students’ perceptions of technology for
educational purposes (Alsufi, 2014; Bennett, 2017; Wallace & Witus, 2013). Additionally,
researchers discovered that even though someone may be proficient at using technology on a
personal level, this proficiency does not always translate to a positive impact of technology
integration in the classroom (Johnson, 2017). Successful and efficient integration of technology
in the mathematics classroom is a complex process which places unique demands on teachers

14
(Gonzalez, 2016; Niess, 2011). Unfortunately, this has led several school districts to abandon
their technology integration programs due to failing to achieve the expected gains in student
achievement (Hu, 2017). According to Fleischer (2012), the reason for these unsuccessful
implementation projects remains largely unanswered. Since implementation of technology does
not always lead to success and student achievement, it is important to understand the ingredients
that lead to a successful technology integration program.
Teacher Self-Efficacy and Ideology with Technology
The effective use of technology as an instructional tool is highly dependent on a teacher’s
self-efficacy and ideology for successful technology integration in the classroom. Holden (2011)
discovered that teacher ideology and self-efficacy to be a significant barrier if the teacher did not
like the technology, were uncomfortable using technology, or simply felt it added little value to
their teaching. Also, technology is unlikely to be used unless teachers believe technology
integration can enhance their existing pedagogical practices (Koehler, 2014). Teacher ideology,
in particular, impacts what individuals adopt as an action plan, and, therefore, determines
whether or not a teacher will choose to integrate technology into their curriculum (Holden &
Rada, 2011). Furthermore, failure to adopt a positive technology ideology has resulted in many
districts in the US dropping 1:1 tablet programs due to resistance from teachers, many of whom
were concerned that the distraction caused by the devices hindered the development of a
conductive learning environment (Islam, 2016).
According to Ertmer (2012), teachers’ beliefs about their own knowledge in using
technology are essential to their self-efficacy with 1:1 tablet implementation. The author also
emphasized that if teachers believe technology can positively influence student achievement,
they are more likely to use technology in their classroom. In all, using 1:1 tablet technology in
the classroom requires highly skilled and flexible teachers with a strong self-efficacy and

15
favorable technology ideology in order to improve academic achievement. In examining the ELL
achievement gap, a study by Joven (2018), found that effective use of technology in the
classroom had a measurable impact on ELLs intrinsic goal orientation, self-efficacy for learning
math, and task value, which resulted in increased ELL achievement.
Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge
The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model developed by
Koehler and Mishra (2014) provides a detailed analysis of how knowledge of technology,
pedagogy and subject matter contribute to the success of a technology integration effort. This
model outlines the necessary skills teachers need in order to effectively integrate technology into
their curriculum. The first form of knowledge is Technology Content Knowledge which is
defined as the understanding of how technology can positively or negatively influence the
delivery of the lesson. The second form of knowledge is Pedagogical Content Knowledge, which
is the ability to interpret and successfully instruct students in the subject matter to meet their
individual needs. The third form of knowledge is Content Knowledge which is the teacher’s
expertise with the subject matter and how the various areas of the subject are interconnected.
Combining these three knowledge areas effectively is crucial in creating a dynamic learning
environment that fosters student success (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). The author further stated
that if the relationship between these three knowledge areas is appreciated, technology is no
longer seen as a separate entity that makes surface-level changes that simply increase efficiency
in teaching and learning, rather, it is seen as something that assists in providing students with
personalized, high-quality learning experiences (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This model
represents a framework to assess a teacher’s capacity to deliver technology infused lessons with
a focus on student-centered teaching and learning.

16
Influence of Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge
Teachers’ motivation in implementing a 1:1 tablet program is also influenced by their
self-efficacy and perceived ease of integrating technology into the classroom (Fuentes, 2015).
According to Koehler and Mishra (2014), teaching with technology is hard to do and requires a
teacher to have strong Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK). TPACK
is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an understanding of the
representation of concepts using technology, implementing pedagogical techniques that use
technologies in constructive ways to teach content, knowledge of students prior understanding
and theories of epistemology (Koehler et al., 2014). Furthermore, successful technology
integration requires teachers to be flexible, open minded and motivated to adapt new
instructional strategies into their pedagogy. Hineman (2015), has determined that a high sense of
self-efficacy is required if teachers are to cope successfully with the uncertainties of classroom
teaching, and for many teachers, this uncertainty is magnified with schools implementing 1:1
tablet program. Using technology in the classroom requires a teacher to process and then
incorporate these new instructional strategies into their lessons which requires a significant
knowledge about of change (Costa & Kallick, 2010). This not only requires flexibility, but also
confidence and self-efficacy in being able to accomplish the task. While research clearly
demonstrates that favorable teacher ideology, self-efficacy and beliefs towards technology are
critical to a successful 1:1 technology integration program, effectively supporting ELL students
with technology adds another dimension of complexity with integrating a 1:1 tablet program.
Teacher Training and Self-efficacy with ELL Students
A teacher’s self-efficacy in instructing ELL students directly relates to their prior
experiences, values, and beliefs, as well as greatly influences their pedagogy (Stewart, 2016). As
much as 88% of educators encounter ELL students in their classrooms; however, less than one

17
third of teachers possess the knowledge or training for proper modification strategies (Gewertz,
2013; Stewart, 2016). Despite the fact that teacher training is on the rise, the quality of the
content and the information supplied for instructing ELL students is still lacking (Gewertz,
2014). In a study by Stewart (2016), teachers revealed that there was a critical lack of
professional development with how to educate ELL students in spite of the overall agreement to
its importance for effective teaching and learning. This is also consistent with the research that
states only 13% of teachers, who are expected to teach ELLs, feel competent to do so (Fitzgerald
& Graves, 2004). When teachers felt unprepared to teach ELLs or other diverse students, it
effects their perceptions of those students as well as lowers their self-efficacy (Stewart, 2016).
Yucesan-Durgunoglu and Hughes (2010) also found that when a teacher is unprepared to work
with ELL students and has low self-efficacy, the teacher tended to neglect ELLs in the classroom
and was unsure how to engage or motivate them.
In multiple studies teachers have expressed their feelings of inadequacy for working with
ELLs and its negative effect on classroom practices and ELL instruction (De Jong, 2013;
Stewart, 2016). To close the achievement gap for ELL students, educators must understand how
to properly meet their needs and provide quality instruction that prepares them for college and
careers (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2012). To improve teachers’ self-efficacy, teachers need
professional development and training to improve their mastery and gain new confidence in their
knowledge (Stewart, 2016; Yucesan-Durgunoglu & Hughes, 2010). Meeting the needs of ELL
students remains a constant struggle for mainstream teachers while implementing content
curriculum and ensuring academic achievement for all students (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2012).
However, if teachers do not obtain this subset of critical skills needed for today’s ELL students,
administrators will be left with the costly and logistically difficult recourse of providing

18
professional development to overcome the deficiency in skills needed by in-service educators to
help ELLs succeed academically (Bass, 2008).
Lack of Technology Professional Development
Current research highlights lack of professional development as a significant challenge to
integrating 1:1 tablet technology in the classroom. One of the primary challenges is that many
teachers lack the necessary skills to integrate technology into their lessons (Koehler & Mishra,
2013). Thus, teachers do not have the skills or confidence in using technology in the classroom
which results in failing to appreciate the devices value or relevance to student learning.
Additionally, acquiring a new skill set can be challenging, particularly if it is a time-intensive
activity that must fit into a busy schedule (Bennett, 2017). Integrating technology in teaching
requires teachers to adapt and periodically redesign their strategies and pedagogical approaches
in order to be proficient in using technology in the mathematics classroom (Stoilescu, 2015).
Bennett (2017) and Hesser et al. (2013) noted that when teachers are not given enough time,
training and support to learn how to implement a new device into the curriculum, students and
teachers have frustrations when using new technology for educational purposes.
Another challenge with professional development is that many programs offered to teachers are a
once-size-fits-all approach to technology integration when, in fact, teachers operate in diverse
contexts of teaching and learning (Koehler et al., 2013). When teachers do not receive the proper
professional development and experience, they display negative attitudes towards using 1:1
tablet technology in their classrooms, which negatively affects students’ perceptions of
technology for educational purposes (Alsufi, 2014; Bennett, 2017; Wallace & Witus, 2013).
Addressing the quality and lack of professional development is crucial for success of the 1:1
tablet implementation program. A focused professional development plan which is tailored to the
classroom context is necessary to overcome the challenges of technology integration, acquisition

19
of new skills and change the culture of an organization. While providing teachers with sufficient
technology professional development opportunities plays a major role in successful 1:1 tablet
integration, developing teacher capacity to effectively instruct ELL students is equally necessary.
Lack of English as a Second Language (ESL) Trained Teachers
According to the National Education Association (2018), the causes of achievement gaps
are multiple and interrelated, and they vary from school to school, district to district, and
community to community, thus, it is important to identify which factors contribute to the
achievement gap. The National Education Association (2018) identified one of the major
obstacles in closing the achievement gap with ELL students is the lack of certified English as a
Second Language (ESL) teachers and support. With the combination of new rigorous standards
and high ELL enrollment, it is necessary to examine how to effectively educate ELLs while
maintaining standards in order to increase achievement (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2012). Bass
(2008) found that the lack of ESL training leads to poor understanding of diversity and
multicultural education required to support these students. Furthermore, developing academic
language requires trained educators because children will not develop this high-level cognitive
academic language proficiency on their own, over time, or simply by interacting in the target
language (Wong-Fillmore, 2014). Therefore, addressing ESL capacity of the teachers is critical
in making progress towards closing achievement gaps.
Reviewing the literature also showed the lack of ESL trained teachers negatively
impacted ELL student access to equal educational opportunities. One example of this was with
the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in October 2011. After a 19-month
investigation by the U.S Department of Education, the investigation found that 30% of students
were denied equal educational opportunities by not affording ELLs access to core academic
classes required to graduate and enroll in college or job training programs (Roblero, 2013). A

20
major contributor to this inequity was the large number of unprepared teachers to instruct ELL
students (U.S. Department of Education 2015). One of the ways in which the LAUSD case was
resolved was to provide professional development to improve the quality of the teachers of
ELLs.
Over the past three decades, researches have investigated the complexity of how make
mathematical content accessible to ELL students (Joven, 2018). The author attributed the lack of
access, in part, to the quality of mathematics instruction and how the content is taught to them.
Findings by Nieto (2017), indicated that teachers weren’t properly prepared to deliver ELL
specific mathematics instruction and only 12% of the teachers had training and professional
development on specific ELL pedagogy. According to the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics (2019), teachers need to take advantage of technological tools to increase access for
ELLs, as well as inspire their interest in mathematics, and raise their mathematical abilities.
Influences of Technology on ELL Education
. Several studied have shown that integrating technology in high school mathematics
classrooms provided ELLs the flexibility to prolong learning beyond the existing educational
programs, and increased opportunities to acquire academic language proficiency (Crawford,
2013). However, there are several influences that educators face when implementing 1:1
technology in the classroom. Hechter and Vernett (2013) identified several challenges with
technology integration as access, time, training, lack of resources and equipment, and support
structures. The authors stated that access, time and support were administrative barriers, training
was a technology barrier, and lack of resources, school demographics, and lack of equipment
were organizational barriers. Therefore, investigating these barriers to technology integration
through the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis could help identify knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences which prevent the organization from achieving its goals.

21
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
This study used the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis which analyzes an organization’s
performance goal and identifies the gap between the current performance and the desired
performance. After identifying the performance gap, this analytical framework examined the
stakeholder knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that contributed to this
performance gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge and skills are defined by Krathwohl (2002)
as (a) factual; (b) conceptual; (c); procedural; and (d) metacognitive, all of which are used to
assess a stakeholder’s ability to achieve the desired performance goal. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), there are three motivational indexes that contribute to goal achievement: active
choice, persistence, and mental effort. In explaining what causes individuals to invest choice,
persistence and mental effort, Eccles (2006) stated that if individuals have confidence in their
ability to do well, they were more likely to be motivated to engage in the activity and place high
value on doing well. Bandura (2000) further explained that self-efficacy, which is an individual's
belief in their ability to achieve goals, is a key predictor of motivated behavior. Along with
knowledge and motivation, organizational factors must also be considered. According to Clark
and Estes (2008), even when individuals are highly knowledgeable and motivated, if there are
missing or inadequate processes and materials this can inhibit the achievement of performance
goals. Therefore, it is important to understand the interaction between the organizations culture
and how it contributes to the processes, policies, and support given to a new endeavor such as
this 1:1 tablet integration program.
Mathematics Teachers’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was used to explore teachers’
knowledge, motivation and organizational needs in order to integrate a 1:1 tablet program in the
mathematics department by May 2021. The first section discusses the knowledge and skills

22
influences that the study explored in the context of technology integration into the classroom.
The second section discusses the motivational influences and their relation to teacher’s beliefs
towards using technology to deliver lessons. Finally, the third section discusses the
organizational influences which impacted the overall success or failure of a technology
integration effort. Each of these assumed stakeholder knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences on performance are then examined in further detail in the methodology section in
Chapter 3.
Knowledge and Skills
In order to explore the teachers’ capacity to effectively implement 1:1 tablets in the
classroom, it was essential to assess the relevant knowledge influences and corresponding
knowledge types. In order for this implementation to be successful, teachers need the knowledge
of how to use the 1:1 devices, how to integrate them into the curriculum, and how to train their
students to use the devices effectively. As discussed by Krathwohl (2002), there are four types of
knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge are the basic
elements that someone must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems. This
includes knowledge of what can be done with the device such as the translation and text to
speech features, and the various applications for visualizations, modeling, and communication.
Conceptual knowledge is the understanding of theories, models and principles and the elements
that enable them to function together. This includes how the device, applications and LMS work
together in supporting the curriculum. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to do
something, methods of inquiry, and criterial for using skills, algorithms, techniques and methods.
This includes the daily classroom practices and procedures of how the applications, LMS, and
communication features are used in class by the students as well as how they are used to support
instruction.

23
The final knowledge domain is metacognitive knowledge, which is defined as the
knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition.
This requires an individual to have knowledge and control of their own cognitive process so that
learning is enhanced; this assertion holds regardless of domain of learning, whether reading,
writing, science, mathematics, or any other activity that involves thinking (Baker & Cerro,
2000). Metacognitive knowledge for this integration program includes daily teacher self-
reflections on how well the 1:1 technology is supporting instruction as well as making the
appropriate modifications to improve classroom practices with the 1:1 device. Evidence is also
be visible in the PLC in which all mathematics teachers reflect and share their past experiences
in order to learn from each other. In order to understand how these knowledge types contribute to
the success of the 1:1 tablet integration effort, it was important to examine the specific
knowledge influences that impact device integration into daily lesson planning.
Knowledge of How to Integrate the Device into Daily Lesson Planning
In order to effectively implement the 1:1 tablet program, teachers at CSIS need to know
how integrate the device into their daily lesson planning as well as understand technology
practices in order to achieve their performance goal. This knowledge must also include how to
support mathematics instruction with technology and how to train students to use the tablets in
the classroom. According to Inan and Lowther (2010), there is a positive correlation between
teachers’ current computer proficiency and their ability to integrate 1:1 devices into their lessons.
Several researchers indicated that when teachers had the knowledge to properly integrate 1:1
devices, student motivation, enthusiasm, and collaboration are all increased (Crescenzi, 2016;
Falloon, 2015; Maich et al., 2017). However, Jovin (2018) found that teachers who lacked
computer proficiency felt devices were challenging to use and struggled to create activities that
would garner a positive student reaction. It is only when both teachers and students have reached

24
a comfort level in the basic knowledge of how to use the devices that the initial frustrations can
be bypassed so that the classroom can move on to optimism, curiosity, risk-taking, flexibility and
persistence in using the device as a teaching and learning tool (Courduff et al., 2016).
Reflecting on Pedagogical Practices
Teachers need to know how to reflect on the effectiveness of their practices in integrating
technology in the classroom. Reflecting on practices allows for personal development and
improved pedagogy. According to Rogers (2002), there are two goals to the reflective cycle. The
first goal is to develop a capacity to observe skillfully and think critically about students and
their learning. The second goal is to begin to take intelligent action based on the understanding
that emerges. As Rogers (2002) stated that this process does not come naturally but must be
learned and this learning requires practice. Furthermore, research by Mayer (2011) stated that
metacognition plays a crucial role in knowing when to utilize the appropriate process during a
given task. It is essential for teachers to reflect on and evaluate the effectiveness of the tablets
during the lesson. Several researchers identified the importance of reflection when implementing
technology into lessons (Kaasila et al., 2008; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002). According to
Clarke and Hollingsworth (2002), in the interconnected model of teachers’ professional growth,
reflection is one of the mediating processes that connect beliefs and practices. The model
includes the following four domains: 1) external source of information or stimulus (the external
domain); 2) teacher knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes (the personal domain); 3) professional
experimentation (the domain of practice); and 4) salient outcomes (the domain of consequence).
According to the model, changes in the domains are connected through the mediating processes
of reflection and action (Hähkiöniemi, 2013). Furthermore, Kieran and Guzman (2013) found
that implementing technology-enriched tasks stimulated a teacher to learn from their own
practice over five-month period. In their study, the teacher developed new awareness of students’

25
mathematical capabilities, the role of technology in mathematical learning, changes in students’
mathematical knowledge, ways to provoke mathematical reflection in students, and students
becoming more involved and autonomous. Table 2 identifies the knowledge type and the
associated assessment mechanism for exploring the knowledge influence for the stakeholders
discussed in the previous sections.

26
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Types, and Knowledge Assessment

Stakeholder Goal

By May 2020, 100% of mathematics teachers will fully integrate the 1:1 tablet devices into
their daily curriculum and instruction to support ELL students.

Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
1. Teachers need to know
how to effectively
integrate the device in
their lesson to support
mathematics instruction
with the 1:1 device with
apps, visualizations,
models and
communication.
Procedural Interview and observation
protocol.
Teachers were asked about
their knowledge,
effectiveness and ability to
utilize the tablet device in the
classroom. Classroom
practices were also observed.

2. Teachers need to know
how to reflect on their
effectiveness in
implementing the device
both personally and in a
PLC with other
mathematics teachers.
Metacognitive

Interview protocol
Teachers will judge the
effectiveness of their
technology infused lesson
and determine the benefits of
the device in supporting
student understanding.

Motivational Influences
In addition to knowledge and skills, motivational influences play a critical role in
achieving the stakeholders’ goal that by May 2020, 100% of mathematics teachers will fully
integrate the 1:1 tablet devices into their daily curriculum and instruction. Full integration is
defined as using the 1:1 tablets during class daily for notetaking, assignment completion and
assignment submission via the LMS. Motivation is a determining factor for an individual
working towards and achieving their goal, and understanding how it contributes to goal
attainment is vital to an organization’s success (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes

27
(2008) explained that there are three motivational indexes that come into play in the work
environment: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice is when a person
chooses (or fails to choose) to actively pursue a work goal. Persistence is when people have
many goals and distractions but are able to resist the temptation of these distractions and focus
on the activity that helps them achieve their goal. Mental effort is defined as the mental work an
individual must invest in the activity to overcome unanticipated challenges to succeed. There are
several motivational underlying variables that determine one’s level of choice such as, self-
efficacy, expectancy value, goal orientation and attribution. Eccles (2006) stated that if people
have confidence in their ability to do well, they are more likely to be motivated to engage in the
activity and place high value on doing well.
Of the many motivational theories, this study focused on exploring mathematics teachers’
self-efficacy and expectancy value theory and how they contribute to the stakeholder goal. These
two theories were used to provide a unique framework to evaluate the motivational influences
and how they contributed to the stakeholder goal. This review of the current literature was used
to explore these variables and determine an assessment method for uncovering the motivational
influences for the stakeholder group.
Teacher Self-Efficacy with 1:1 Device Integration
According to research by Bandura (2000) and Pajares (2006), an individual’s self-
efficacy (or lack of) is a strong predictor of their ability to perform a task. Having a high self-
efficacy translates to an improved motivation, willingness to engage in a task, and fortitude to
persist in the task (Clark & Estes, 2006). Research by Mayer (2011) also identified that
individuals with higher self-efficacy work harder, believing they are capable of doing well on a
particular learning task. In the context of this study, teachers with a high level of self-efficacy are
likely to provide students with a positive and engaging educational experience with the 1:1

28
devices which is differentiated for ELL students. According to Wright (2015), teachers with high
self-efficacy would persist, even if technology was not “easy” or even rife with impediments.
Furthermore, Courduff et al. (2016), stated that teachers with high self-efficacy with technology
could easily overcome initial frustrations and move on to optimism, curiosity, risk-taking,
flexibility and persistence in using the device as a teaching and learning tool. However, these
behaviors would not be evident in a classroom where teacher and students did not perceive
technology well. In fact, Maich et al. (2017), stated low self-efficacy would create increased
frustration, inconsistent and piecemeal implementation, and potential disconnect between the
intended purposes of technology and actual use.
Teachers’ motivation in implementing a 1:1 technology program is greatly influenced by
their self-efficacy and perceived ease of integrating technology into the classroom (Fuentes,
2015). According to Koehler and Mishra (2014), teaching with technology is challenging to
accomplish and requires a teacher to have strong Technological, Pedagogical, and Content
Knowledge (TPACK). TPACK is the basis of effective teaching with technology, requiring an
understanding of the representation of concepts using technology, implementing pedagogical
techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content, knowledge of students’
prior understanding, and theories of epistemology (Koehler et al., 2014). At CSIS, teachers have
a wide range of abilities and not everyone may be comfortable with the new devices, so
developing every teacher’s TPACK is crucial to achieving the stakeholder goal.
Research by Hineman (2015) stated that a high sense of self-efficacy is required if
teachers are to cope successfully with the uncertainties of classroom teaching, and for many
teachers, this uncertainty is magnified with schools implementing 1:1 technology programs. In
the 21st century environment, it is important for CSIS to develop teachers’ skills with technology
through professional development which will enhance their self-efficacy, support a technology-

29
based ideology, and provide teachers with the tools to for implementation. Implementing a 1:1
device program requires highly skilled teachers with a strong self-efficacy and favorable
technology ideology in order to reduce the ELL achievement gap at CSIS. Reseach by Paraskeva
et al. (2008) concluded that teachers with strong technology self-efficacy are more open to new
ideas and more willing to experiment with new student focused methods which empower
students to become more active learners. As stated by Clark and Estes (2008), if people are
pessimistic about their abilities, they cannot be effective no matter what they do, and will not
actively pursue work goals, persist, or invest enough mental effort to do their best.
Teacher Expectancy Value with 1:1 Device Integration
The second motivational influence related to successful 1:1 device integration is the
perceived value in implementing the 1:1 device program. In this motivational influence, this
study focused on examining the value dimension. According to Eccles (2006), expectancy value
theory is the perceived importance people attribute to doing a task. The author stated that one’s
ability to master academic work was a strong predictor of achievement and directly related to
how much they value the activity. In evaluating motivation with this theory, Eccles (2006)
suggested asking the question: Do I want to do the task? In this question, the value is
determined by four related constructs: intrinsic interest, attainment value, utility value, and
perceived cost. Intrinsic value refers to either the enjoyment one feels when doing the task or the
enjoyment one expects to experience while engaged in the task (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2004;
Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) also suggested that enjoyment in a task can also be
motivated by an individual’s desire to be effective in their life. The authors demonstrated that
cultural differences influence an individual’s belief on how to be effective. People from
individualistic cultures tend to believe they are responsible for what happens to them, and desire
to control events themselves whereas people from collective cultural backgrounds tend to believe

30
important events in their lives are not caused by anything they have done or failed to do and try
to influence events indirectly. Since CSIS employs teachers from a wide range of cultures, both
individualistic and collective, it is crucial to understand individual teacher beliefs in order to best
motivate them. Furthermore, these teachers need to reconcile their personal beliefs with the
organizational beliefs in order for them to be successful in achieving the organizational goal.
Attainment value refers to the link between tasks and individuals’ own identities and
preferences (Eccles, 2006). When a task is perceived to be important to an individual’s identity,
that person will place higher value on investing time and energy in doing well during that
activity (Eccles, 2006; Schraw & Lehman, 2009). This can be enhanced through professional
development that supports teachers in developing pedagogical practices with the 1:1 devices that
align to their beliefs on how teaching should be done. For example, if a mathematics teacher
places high emphasis on graphing, they could be introduced to new tools such as DESMOS,
which is a powerful graphing utility for tablets which allows detailed interrogation of graphical
plots.
Utility value refers to how well a task fits into an individual’s goals and plans or fulfills
other basic psychological needs (Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Research by Pintrich (2004) also
identified that higher levels of motivation can be achieved if a person finds the task useful to
them as an individual. As CSIS implements the tablet program, they are also introducing online
grading and many streamlined services for teachers designed to save time and provide teachers
with more data about their students. When teachers are trained how to use the new and improved
services, not only will it enhance the utility value but also the perceived cost. Eccles (2006)
defined perceived cost as being dependent on the cost of participating in the activity. This cost is
influenced by many factors for teachers such as the loss of time and energy, fear of failing in the
classroom and failing to perform to administration’s expectations. With proper support, these

31
negative factors can all be eliminated or at least mitigated to a significant degree. As Pajares
(2006) warned, if these negative cost factors are realized, it can have a devastating impact on a
person’s self-efficacy and motivation to persist in the task.
Evaluating the stakeholder’s motivation in implementing the 1:1 tablet program at CSIS
was analyzed through the lens of self-efficacy and expectancy value theory. As outlined by
Holden (2011), teacher ideology and self-efficacy can be a significant barrier for a technology
integration program. Also, technology is unlikely to be used unless teachers believe technology
integration can enhance their pedagogy and the student classroom experience (Koehler, 2014).
Teacher ideology in particular impacts attainment value in that tasks important to a teacher’s
identity are adopted into their pedagogy and, therefore, determine whether or not a teacher will
choose to integrate technology into their curriculum (Holden & Rada, 2011). Table 3 identifies
the assumed motivational influences and the associated assessment mechanism for exploring the
motivational influence for the stakeholders discussed in the previous sections.

32
Table 3
Motivational Influences and Motivational Influences Assessments
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment

Self-Efficacy – Teachers need to believe in
their ability to implement the tablets in their
classroom daily.

Interview questions:
1. Tell me how you feel about your ability to
use tablets to teach mathematics?
2. How would you describe the integration of
the 1:1 tablets into your classroom?
3. Have you faced any challenges when
integrating technology in your classroom?
4. Has there ever been a time where you had
to modify your lessons on the fly?

Expectancy Value – Teachers need to see the
value added by using and implementing the
tablets into their daily lessons.
Interview:
1. What are your general feelings about the
role of technology in education?
2. In what ways do you think technology
helps or hinders mathematics instruction?
3. How would you describe the integration of
the 1:1 tablets in your classroom

Organizational Influences
In addition to knowledge and motivation, understanding organizational culture is key to
achieving the stakeholder goal of successful tablet integration in the classroom. Schein (2017)
defined the culture of a group as the pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a
group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked
well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct
way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems. This accumulated learning of the
group establishes the patterns, routines and norms of how new processes are integrated into the
organization. However, even for people with top motivation and exceptional knowledge and
skills, missing or inadequate processes and materials can prevent the achievement of
performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, Schein (2017) stated that if these

33
operational cultural forces were misunderstood, we become victim to them. Thus, for
transformational change to occur, an organization must also examine its culture in addition to
knowledge and motivation when conducting a gap analysis.
Cultural Models
In order to understand the effects of organizational culture on the teachers’ capacity to
adapt daily lessons to integrate tablets, it is necessary to assess relevant cultural models.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) defined cultural models as the shared mental schema or
normative understandings of how the world works, or ought to work which include behavioral
and cognitive components. For China Southern International School (CSIS), this includes the
values, beliefs, and attitudes of those in the organization. This shared understanding and mental
schema greatly influences how CSIS evaluates the value, process of integration and function of
the tablets in the classroom. The following sections explore the cultural models of the trust
relationships between teachers and administration which contribute to the stakeholder goal of
successful 1:1 tablet implementation by May 2020 in the mathematics department.
Culture of Trust Between Teachers and Administration. To better understand the
organizational influences, the cultural model of the trust relationships between teachers and
administration was used. According to a Gallup Poll of 10,004 individuals conducted from 2005
to 2006, respondents identified trust as one of the basic needs between an employee and leader
(Rath, 2008). Korsgaard et al. (2002) further stated that employees who lacked trust in their
leadership posed a significant threat to cooperative relationships and work engagement.
However, if employees have a healthy relationship with their leadership, then they are more
engaged, possess a strong conceptual grasp of their organization’s goals and mission, and can
perform at the highest levels of productivity (Berbary & Malinchak, 2011). Additionally,
research has found that cooperative relationships also improves conflict resolution which

34
enhances team performance (Alper et al., 2000). As stated by Maich et al. (2017), leadership
played an instrumental role in not only funding and ongoing professional development, but also
in recognizing that teachers are introducing complexity and additional risk-taking into their
lessons; therefore, support must also include developing a forum of collaboration where teachers
can resolve their struggles and frustrations. Furthermore, when cultural patterns align with the
challenges of the marketplace, leaders can shape a more cohesive and effective organization that
can be fashioned and perpetuated (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Thus, this study sought to understand
the trust relationship between teachers and administration and how they impact teachers’
capacity to implement the 1:1 tablets to meet the needs of ELL students and eliminate the
achievement gap.
Cultural Settings
Whenever two or more people come together, the visible concrete manifestations of
cultural models appear in cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). For CSIS these
cultural settings include collaboration time with other subject teachers, mentoring sessions with
supervisors, professional development and numerous other social settings. It is within these
settings that culture exists and is created, where people come together to carry out joint activity
that accomplishes something they value (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010). This section explores
the cultural settings of initial training to implement the tablets as well as the ongoing
professional development which is critical to CSIS’s achievement of the stakeholder goal.
Initial Training to Implement Tablets. Research has found that when teachers received
effective initial training, their willingness to use technology in their classroom increases
(Koehler & Mishra, 2014). Furthermore, integrating technology into the classroom requires
teachers to adapt, collaborate and periodically redesign their strategies and pedagogical
approaches in order to be proficient in using technology in the mathematics classroom (Stoilescu,

35
2015). So, teachers must be adaptable, open-minded, and willing to collaborate in order to
successfully integrate new practices into their pedagogy. As stated by Clark and Estes (2008), the
current work processes of an organization the most important because it dictates how well we
work together to get our job done when faced with new challenges. Therefore, this study
explored the teachers’ experiences with and perceptions about the initial training and the degree
to which it supported their capacity to fully integrate the 1:1 tablet devices into their daily
curriculum and instruction by May 2020,
Ongoing Professional Development. Acquiring a new skill set can be difficult,
particularly if it requires a significant amount of time (Bennett, 2017). Integrating tablets in
teaching requires CSIS teachers to take the time to adapt and redesign their strategies and
pedagogical approaches in order to be proficient in using technology in the mathematics
classroom. Researchers found that when teachers are not given enough time and support to learn
how to integrate a new device into the curriculum, they will experience significant frustrations
(Bennett, 2017; Hesser, 2013). When people are too busy or overstressed by deadlines and
scheduling pressures, their ability to think analytically and creatively is compromised (Garvin,
2008). Furthermore, Berrett (2012) said that teachers needed to be both ready and willing to
participate in the training in order for the training to be effective. Therefore, CSIS needs to
ensure teachers have enough time and support to learn how to use the devices to ensure the
program’s success.
As teachers begin to learn how to retool their lessons to make use of these new devices,
CSIS must establish a supporting and ongoing learning environment. Research by Garvin (2008)
stated that supportive learning environments allow time for a pause in the action and encourage
thoughtful reflection, openness to new ideas, appreciation of differences and provide
psychological safety. Additionally, effective learning environments require leadership that

36
reinforces the learning. When leaders actively question and listen to their staff—and thereby
prompt dialogue and debate—people in the institution feel encouraged to learn (Garvin, 2008).
Furthermore, leaders must help their staff restructure their views of reality to see beyond the
superficial conditions and events into the underlying causes of problems—and therefore to see
new possibilities for shaping the future (Senge, 1990). With strong leadership in a supporting
learning environment CSIS is able to respond to challenges faced by teachers in using these 1:1
tablet devices in working towards the organizational goal of reducing the ELL achievement gap.
Ongoing Technical Support. As educators become comfortable and skilled with using
1:1 technology in the classroom, it is equally important to have adequate technical support to
address any technology issues that come up. According to Maich et al. (2017), it is imperative to
proactively build in a plan for long-term and ongoing technical support to keep programs up and
running. Access to cutting edge technology and resources does not always guarantee effective
use of technology in the classroom. Research by Groff (2008), highlighted an infinite list of
potential problems that technology itself can present and suggested developing sound
infrastructure composed of uniform devices along with a coherent technology team. While
technology by its very nature, brings its own challenges to the classroom, having strong ongoing
support structures can help mitigate such challenges (Bennett, 2017).
Table 4 identifies the assumed organizational influences and the associated assessment
mechanism for exploring the organizational influence for the stakeholders discussed in the
previous sections.

37
Table 4
Motivational Influences and Motivational Influences Assessments

Conceptual Framework for the Study
According to Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework is defined as tentative theory or
model of what is going on with a particular phenomenon and why. This framework was used to
examine how knowledge, motivational and organizational influences interact and how it informs
the problem of practice. In developing the conceptual framework for this technology integration
program, recent literature as well major seminal works on 1:1 tablet programs was used to
identify common themes which relate to CSIS. The four emergent organizational factors
important to CSIS are strong trust relationship between teachers and administration, a supportive
learning environment, and effective technical support. Furthermore, this study examined the
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment

Cultural Model Influence 1:
Trust Relationships – The organization needs
to establish a culture of trust between
teachers and administration.

Interview questions to understand the
dynamics of the trust relationships that exist
between teachers and administration.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Learning Culture - The organization needs to
provide teachers with the initial training to
effectively integrate the 1:1 tablet devices
into their classrooms.

Interviews with teachers to understand their
experiences with the initial training, and
integrating the 1:1 tablet devices.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Supportive Learning Environment – The
organization needs to establish an ongoing
professional development learning
community to support teachers as they
integrate the tablets into their instruction.

Interviews with the teachers to determine if
they feel they have enough time to learn how
to use the devices.
Cultural Setting Influence 3:
Technical Support - The organization needs
to provide ongoing technical support.

Interview questions about support they are
receiving for using technical in the
classroom.

38
knowledge and motivation of teachers as the stakeholder group and how these factors interact
with the organizational culture.
Interaction Between Procedural Knowledge, Training and Self-Efficacy
The first interaction that was examined was the vital connection between procedural
knowledge, professional development and self-efficacy. To fully understand the ability of CSIS
teachers to implement a 1:1 device program, the researcher examined CSIS’s teacher capacity by
applying Koehler and Mishra’s (2009) Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge
(TPACK) model. This model helped define and measure the skills necessary for teachers to be
effective in integrating their current instructional practices with technology. According to
Koehler and Mishra (2014), one of the challenges is that many teachers earned degrees at a time
when educational technology was at a very different stage of development than it is today, so it is
important to identify where these gaps exist. Once these gaps are identified, professional
development can be restructured to target these shortcomings and build the teachers capacity to
integrate technology. In a study by Inan and Lowther (2010), they identified a positive
correlation between teachers’ knowledge and their ability to integrate devices into their lessons.
If people are optimistic about their abilities, they can be effective in pursuing work goals, persist,
and invest enough mental effort to do their best (Clark & Estes, 2008). This translates to greater
self-efficacy and improved motivation in using technology in the classroom. As discovered by
Bandura (2000) and Pajares (2006), an individual’s self-efficacy (or lack thereof) is a strong
predictor of their ability to perform a task. However, developing strong TPACK knowledge and
self-efficacy alone will not lead to 1:1 implementation success, teachers must also value the
devices and the role they play in increasing student achievement in mathematics.

39
Expectancy Value Theory and Learning Culture
According to Eccles (2006) expectancy value theory is the perceived importance people
attribute to doing a task—vital for predicting performance and motivation. Research has shown
that when a person finds a task useful to them as an individual, then higher levels of motivation
can be achieved (Pintrich, 2004). This usefulness will come in the form of streamlined grading,
online communication with students and parents as well as many other services for teachers
designed to save time and provide teachers with more data about their students. However, for
this to be realized, CSIS must provide an atmosphere of a supportive learning culture and the
time to learn how to successfully integrate these devices. Holden et al. (2013) discovered that if
teachers were uncomfortable using technology in their classroom, this discomfort negatively
affected intrinsic interest and reduced motivation in students. Therefore, by establishing a strong
learning culture, teachers will be able to respond to challenges faced by colleagues in a
constructive manner. This will allow time for a pause in the action and encourage thoughtful
reflection, openness to new ideas, appreciation of differences and provide psychological safety
(Garvin, 2008). Furthermore, Clark and Estes (2008) also suggested that when an individual is
effective at work and enjoys their tasks, it strongly enhances their motivation. Therefore, in order
to successfully implement this 1:1 device program, CSIS must establish an atmosphere of a
strong organizational learning culture to enhance teachers’ value of the devices and motivation to
use them—allowing CSIS to achieve their stakeholder goal of 1:1 implementation in the
mathematics department by December 2019.
Figure 5 below illustrates how the organizational influences interact with the teachers’
knowledge and motivation in achieving the stakeholder goal. The outer blue circle represents the
key organizational influences of CSIS such as the learning culture, trust relationships, supporting
learning environment, and technical support. These organizational factors directly impact

40
teachers’ procedural and metacognitive knowledge, self-efficacy and expectancy value which is
represented by the inner green circle. The arrow represents the path to successful achievement of
the stakeholder goal which can be obtained by applying the Clark and Estes (2009) gap analysis
to these knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences.

41
Figure 1
Interaction of Knowledge, Motivational and Organizational Influences

China Southern International School (CSIS)
Learning Culture - The organization needs to provide teachers with the initial training to
effectively integrate the 1:1 tablet devices into their classrooms.

Trust Relationships – The organization needs to establish a culture of trust between teachers
and administration.

Supportive Learning Environment – The organization needs to establish an ongoing
professional development learning community to support teachers as they integrate the
tablets into their instruction.

Technical Support - The organization needs to provide ongoing technical support.

Teachers
Knowledge (Procedural) - Teachers know how to effectively integrate
the tablets in lessons and support math instruction with technology.

Knowledge (Metacognitive) - Teachers know how to reflect on the
effectiveness of the technology in the classroom.

Motivation (Self-Efficacy) - Teachers need to believe they are capable
of using the tablets in their classroom daily.

Motivation (Expectancy Value) - Teachers need to see the value added
by integrating the tablets into their daily lessons.

Stakeholder Goal
A 1:1 tablet program will be successfully
implemented in the mathematics
department by May 2020.

42
Summary
In reviewing the literature on the best practices of implementing a 1:1 technology
program in the high school mathematics classroom, evidence demonstrates both positive and
negative impacts on student achievement. Successful 1:1 integration requires high levels of self-
efficacy and positive ideology towards the perceived benefits of the devices. When teachers
believe technology can positively influence student achievement, they were more likely to use
technology in their classroom (Ertmer, 2012). Additionally, addressing the quality and lack of
professional development is crucial for successful 1:1 technology implementation. Many
professional development programs offered to teachers are purpose built and do not address the
teachers needs in their diverse contexts of teaching and learning (Koehler et al., 2014). However,
when teacher capacity is developed, technology usage in the classroom has shown to increase
student engagement, learning, motivation, and higher levels of student cognition (Brady, 2013;
Geer & Barns, 2007). With this information in mind, this study sought to understand the
knowledge, motivational and organizational factors that lead to successful implementation as
well as how these factors interact. The following section explains how this case study was
conducted and how the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was applied to this
problem of practice.

43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of this study was to explore teacher capacity to successfully implement the
1:1 tablet program in the context of addressing the ELL achievement gap in mathematics. This
study focused on teachers as the stakeholder group for the study and their ability to integrate
these devices into their curriculum and instruction to reduce the ELL achievement gap. The
achievement of this goal will be measured by end-of-year comprehensive exams, AP exams, and
the PISA exam. At China Southern International School (CSIS, pseudonym), this problem is
significant because a large percent of the student population are ELL students—comprising of
just over 95% of the student body. Evidence highlighted by the OECD (2016) indicated that ELL
students receiving education outside their native language experienced an achievement gap in
every country they studied; therefore, it is important to examine the effectiveness of this 1:1
technology program in its attempt to reduce the ELL achievement gap.
Participating Stakeholders
Three stakeholder groups contribute to the successful implementation of the 1:1 device
program. These stakeholder groups include the administration, mathematics teachers and
students. However, the participating stakeholders in this study are the high school mathematics
teachers at CSIS since they are responsible for the day to day success of the program. Currently,
this is the only department implementing 1:1 devices in the classroom. There are seven
mathematics teachers in total from North America, three have bachelor’s degrees, three have
master’s degrees and one has a doctorate degree. Their experience levels in teaching
mathematics ranges from 12-years to 32-years. All mathematics teachers were invited to
interview after the IRB approval was received.

44
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The data collection methods chosen for this study were interviews, observations and
document analysis. Having multiple sources of data to investigate these research questions is
necessary for triangulation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study began with the analysis of all
CSIS’s available documents to include technology policies, professional development records,
teacher lesson plans, LMS forums, and meeting minutes to determine the extent of technology
integration. This analysis helped identify recurring topics and themes, and uncovered additional
documents that shed light on CSIS’s capacity to implement the 1:1 tablet program to reduce the
ELL achievement gap. Reviewing individual teachers’ lesson plans helped answer the first
question of teacher teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing the 1:1 tablet
program. From the teachers’ lesson plans, it was evident how teachers are using the devices to
support mathematics instruction and differentiate lessons for ELL students. Additionally,
analyzing school documents and policies assisted in answering the second research question of
how the school culture and context either support or hinder teachers’ capacity to use 1:1 tablets
in the classroom. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), documents are an effective source of
data and could be a more credible source of data on a particular subject, better than observations
or interviews. However, great care must be taken to ensure the accuracy of the information,
biases of the creator, and under what circumstances it was produced and for what purpose
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The second source of data collection was a semi-structured interview of all the
mathematics teachers. This format allowed for a flexible discussion in which allowed the
researcher to respond to the interviewee by probing deeper into topics related to the research
questions. The interviews were used to investigate the teachers’ knowledge and motivation in
implementing the 1:1 tablet program which helped answer research question number one. These

45
interview questions examined teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical, and Conceptual Knowledge
(TPACK) through the lens of Koehler and Mishra (2009) model. This helped create a vivid
description of the teachers’ motivation and capacity to successfully deliver technology infused
instruction to address the ELL achievement gap. In addition to teachers’ knowledge and
motivation, the interviews also sought to uncover the organizational influences which help or
hinder the 1:1 tablet integration program—answering research question number two. During the
interviews, the teachers were asked several questions about the school culture, support structures,
training and professional experiences in order to uncover the organizational factors related to the
1:1 tablet program.
The final source of data being used in this study are observations. Observations are useful
in that they can provide important information and new perspectives through firsthand
experience (Merriam, 2009). The observation protocol was designed to identify classroom
practices and artifacts related to how technology is used to support ELL students. The
observations identified the extent of technology integration by using the rubric in Appendix D,
ELL instructional strategies, and the students’ abilities to use the devices; however, it was not
able to identify the level of student engagement. These observations were then analyzed to
identify the emerging trends and crosschecked with other sources of data.
Interviews
The semi-structured interview of all the seven mathematics teachers took place online
using the video conferencing application Zoom and were recorded with the permission of each
participant. Each participant was provided a Starbucks gift card worth approximately $14 for
participating in the interviews. The interviews were conducted after work from the privacy of
each participants apartment. Additionally, the researcher was also located at home which ensured

46
privacy. The Zoom interviews not only offered a convenient way to record, but greatly reduced
any outside distractions.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The teacher must currently be teaching high school mathematics.
Criterion 2. The teacher must be implementing the 1:1 tablets in their classroom as of
March 2020.
Criterion 3. The teacher must be willing to participate in an interview.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
This study used a comprehensive census sampling strategy which is defined as a
sampling strategy that includes all relevant cases. According to Johnson and Christensen (2017),
this type of sampling guarantees representativeness because everyone is included in the study. If
someone were to be left out, then the credibility of the findings could suffer (Fink, 2013).
However, since the mathematics department is relatively small with only seven teachers, it was
practical to accomplish. Furthermore, since this study was concerned with evaluating the
teachers’ capacity of integrating 1:1 devices in the high school mathematics classroom, this was
the most appropriate stakeholder group to interview.
According to Johnson and Christensen (2017), interviews can be used to obtain in-depth
information about a participant’s thoughts, beliefs, knowledge, reasoning, motivation and
feelings about a topic. This census sampling approach provided the best method for gaining an
understanding of the teachers’ perspective of 1:1 technology in the classroom. The interviews
took place in June-2020. The interview sought to understand teacher knowledge, motivation,
preparedness, and beliefs about the 1:1 program as it is being implemented—an essential
component of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis. These interviews were conducted by
using the interview guide approach in which specific topics were explored using open-ended

47
questions of the interviewees (Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Maxwell, 2013). This allowed
teachers to elaborate and go deeper on the various interview questions.
Interview Protocol
The interview protocol was developed to gain an understanding of teachers’ knowledge
and motivation with integrating and implementing the 1:1 tablet program technology in their
curriculum and instruction. According to Merriam (2016), interviews help obtain information
that cannot be observed such as individual feelings and interpretation of the phenomena being
studied. The interviews utilized a semi-structured protocol and with 19 open-ended questions for
mathematics teachers to address the first two research questions. Questions developed for the
interview were checked to ensure they aligned to the research questions and that the information
would allow the researcher to make connections between the interviewee’s answers and the other
sources of data collection (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The interview
questions and protocol are contained in Appendix A.
Interview Procedures
The interviews began a week after the all the lesson observations. This helped clarify any
questions the researcher had about how the individual teacher was using technology on a daily
basis. The researcher used a cooperative style as defined by Merriam (2016) where the
researcher is transparent about their role and research being conducted in order to build trust and
rapport with the interviewees. The interviews were recorded by the Zoom application as well as
the notetaking app Notability for a backup. The Notability application has the ability to record
and take notes which can be easily indexed and transcribed.

48
Observations
The observations took place in the teachers’ classrooms of those who agreed to
participate in the study. This allowed the researcher to collect firsthand data of the phenomenon
being observed. According to Merriam (2016), observations allow researchers to notice things
that have become routine to the participates themselves, things that may lead to understanding of
the context. Merriam (2016) explained that observations are also conducted to triangulate
emerging findings in conjunction with interviews and document analysis to substantiate the
findings. Additionally, the observations were conducted before the interviews to allow the
researcher to ask the teacher additional and clarifying questions about what was observed in the
lesson during the interview.
Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The teacher must currently be teaching high school mathematics.
Criterion 2. The teacher must be using 1:1 tablets in the lesson to be observed as of
March 2020.
Criterion 3. The teacher must be willing to participate in an interview.
Observation Protocol
The observation protocol was designed to focus on technology usage in the classroom
and how technology supports ELL students. Classmates from the same doctoral cohort reviewed
the observation protocol as part of an inquiry course that looked at the observation elements to
ensure they are suitable for collecting evidence of technology support for ELL students. These
elements include classroom environment, pedagogical strategies used, student engagement,
student grouping, and ELL technology support. The protocol also includes an area designed to
record demographic information of the class, teacher behavior, and student behavior. The
protocol enabled the researcher to take notes quickly while creating a structure that could be

49
coded and analyzed easily (Merriam, 2009). The observations were also coded by teacher
pseudonyms to ensure privacy in addition to being coded by the emerging themes. This allowed
the researcher to identify emerging themes across the various forms of data collection. The
observation instrument is contained in Appendix B.
Observation Procedures
Observations enable a researcher to obtain a new perspective on a phenomenon being
studied through firsthand experiences (Merriam, 2016). The observations occured shortly before
the interviews. The observations spanned an entire 50-minute class period using the protocol as a
guide to record the physical setting, student teacher interactions, technology usage, and
technology strategies used to support ELL students. The researcher was a pure observer as
defined by Merriam (2016) and stayed in a central location in the back of the classroom, taking
notes. This choice was made so the researcher could best view and record how the teacher is
using technology in the classroom. Additionally, the researcher took further detailed notes
immediately after each observation as recommended by Bogdan and Biklen (2007). Notes were
recorded by the Notability app which records both the handwriting of the researcher and an audio
recording of the class. The observation protocol is located in Appendix B
Documents and Artifacts
In order to create a rich description and analysis of a problem of practice, a researcher
must use multiple sources of data so the results can be triangulated (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009). According to Merriam (2009), the analysis of the key documents can enable a researcher
to gain information that would assist in addressing the research questions through official
communications and papers (Merriam, 2009). These documents include CSIS’s technology
policy, the schools mission statement, math department forum on the LMS, class offerings, and
lesson plans from the mathematics department. CSIS and the seven mathematics teachers were

50
asked permission to collect these documents for analysis with the understanding that no single
document will be identified with an individual name. At CSIS there are several school policy
documents which outline the usage and restrictions of technology use during school hours and
for boarding students. These documents were used to evaluate how supportive or hindering the
school culture was in regard to technology. Class schedules and course offerings were also
evaluated to determine how much the school invests in developing student capacity to use the
devices. Finally, individual teacher lesson plans and outlines were evaluated to determine the
amount of technology used in the class and how the technology was being used to support ELL
students. Even though the lesson plan format varied considerably, these outlines had clear
evidence of technology usage or lack of usage. The document review instruments are contained
in Appendix C.
Data Analysis
For this study, the researcher used a qualitative data analysis for the evaluation of the
problem of practice. According to Creswell (2014), qualitative data analysis involves the
collection of data from several sources such as interviews, observations, and document analysis.
This study included interviewing high school mathematics teachers, observing their classrooms,
and collecting documents such as lesson plans, teaching materials, and organizational policies
related to technology. This analysis provided insight to the teachers’ knowledge and motivation
of integrating the 1:1 devices into their curriculum as well as the organizational factors which
support this integration.
Once the data was collected, it was further processed by the researcher. Interviews were
transcribed, and codes were developed to identify emerging themes which were related to the
knowledge, motivational and organizational influences identified in this study. Data from
observations and document analysis were also coded to identify common themes and served as a

51
method to improve credibility and trustworthiness. Analytical memos were also written after
each of the interviews and observations to document the researcher’s thoughts and feelings about
how this data relates to the conceptual framework. From there, the conceptual framework was
used to identify consistencies and inconsistencies which related to the conceptual framework and
research questions. Finally, the emerging themes were used to identify the gaps that adversely
impacted the 1:1 device implementation effort.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To ensure credibility and trustworthiness, the researcher applied elements triangulation
and member checking. According to Maxwell (2013), counting can be used to determine whether
there are enough occurrences of a topic to be significant. Additionally, counting can help protect
against bias and increase credibility. This method was used across all data collection
instrumentation to identify common themes which emerge in the data. Additionally, triangulation
can increase credibility and trustworthiness by comparing and analyzing multiple sources of data
(Merriam, 2016). In this study, documents, interviews and observations were collected to
identify emerging themes across the various data collection instruments. Additionally, to ensure
the accuracy of the interpretations of the interviews, the researcher used member checking to
seek feedback from the interviewees. According to Merriam (2016) member checking works to
ensure the accuracy of the interpretations of what was recorded in the interview. This allowed the
researcher to ensure credibility and trustworthiness.
Ethics
According to Patton (2002), the trustworthiness and credibility of a study are tied directly
to the integrity of those who collect the data. This section describes the ethical issues related to
the collection and analysis of data from human subjects at CSIS. Before data collection, the
human participants were informed that their participation in the interview was voluntary and that

52
their information would be kept confidential. Additionally, they were instructed that they may
stop the interview at any point for any reason. They were also asked to sign a confidentially and
permission to record statement which they received before the interview to ensure they had
enough time to fully understand these rights. Furthermore, the ethical guidelines established by
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) were strictly adhered to as this study was conducted.
At CSIS, the researcher is a high school physics teacher in a non-supervisory role who
knows the seven mathematics teachers on a professional level and has monthly interactions
during cross curricular alignment meetings. The researchers’ interest in the results is to learn
how 1:1 tablets can be used to reduce the achievement gap with ELL students since the physics
department is likely to join this tablet integration program in 2022. In this study, both the
participants and the administration were interested in exploring the current practices of the 1:1
tablet integration which revealed assets as well as challenges. The data and results were reported
anonymously, and the administration understood they would not have access to individual data
or know who has participated in order to reduce any risk to the participants. According to
Merriam (2009) to maintain confidentiality and integrity of a study, researchers must keep all
information gathered through the data collection process private and secure at all times.
As stated by Merriam (2009), personal bias can become an ethical issue for researchers
when conducting investigations and data collections. While the researcher is a strong proponent
of technology usage in the classroom and believes it can positively impact the ELL achievement
gap, he does realize that his opinion about technology may not be shared by all the participants
and was objective during analysis. In order to improve the accuracy of what was presented in this
study, triangulation from a variety of data sources was used. This helped in developing common
themes supported through the triangulation process in order to maintain the integrity of the
research findings (Maxwell, 2013). Additionally, Merriam (2009) suggested checking

53
interpretations with individuals interviewed and observed and asking peers to comment on
emerging findings over time to further reduce any biases in the results. This was done at the
conclusion of the interview to ensure individuals comments were accurately represented as well
as to uncover any additional information beneficial to the study.
Limitations and Delimitations
Due to factors beyond the control of the researcher, there were several limitations to this
study. First, this study was at a single school in Southern China so the findings cannot be
generalized to other schools. Additionally, the duration of the study was over a brief four-month
period of time and includes only inviting seven high school mathematics teachers as participants.
These participants were not randomly selected and the interviews were limited to one per
participant and the researcher selected the dates and times for the interviews. Additionally, a key
limitation was that the interviews were self-reported data. However, they were triangulated by
document analysis and observations for general findings that emerged from these data sources.
The observations, collection of data, and document analysis were all subject to the level of
knowledge, bias, and interpretation of the researcher. Furthermore, the data collection
instruments were focused on the research questions. Finally, the researcher chose to focus on
teachers as the stakeholder, choosing not to seek input from administration, parents or other
community members.

54
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this research study was to evaluate CSIS’s performance in achieving its
goal of successfully implementing a 1:1 tablet program in the mathematics department. This
evaluation focused on mathematics teachers’ knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences that either helped and hindered in attaining the organizational goal. The research
questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What is the math teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to fully integrating the 1:1
tablet devices into their daily curriculum and instruction?
2. How does school culture and context either support or hinder teachers’ capacity to fully
integrate the 1:1 tablet devices into their daily curriculum and instruction?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions?
To answer these questions, a qualitative method was employed by conducting a
document analysis, interviews and observations of all seven the mathematics teachers. This
implementation program began on March 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic in which all
students were attending online classes from March until mid-April. Once students returned to the
classrooms in mid-April, all seven high school mathematics teachers were observed once during
the month of May and interviewed a month later in mid-June of 2020, two weeks before the end
of the school year. The interviews were semi-structured which allowed the researcher to respond
to the interviewee by probing deeper into topics related to the research questions. The 19
interview questions examined the teachers’ Technological, Pedagogical, and Conceptual
Knowledge (TPACK) through the lens of Koehler and Mishra (2009) model. This helped create
a vivid description of the teachers’ knowledge and motivation to successfully implement the 1:1
tablets into their classroom. Additionally, six interview questions focused on uncovering the
organizational influences which helped or hindered the 1:1 tablet integration program. These

55
questions examined the school culture, support structures, training and professional experiences
in order to uncover the organizational factors related to the 1:1 tablet program. The document
analysis was conducted from early March 2020 and continued until the end of the school year in
June 2020. Table 5 below summarizes the seven mathematics teachers interviewed by
experience, current position and educational background in terms of highest diploma earned and
ELL formal education.
Table 5

Participants’ Experience, Position, and Education

Participant Years of teaching
experience
Current Classes Taught University and ELL Education
P1 18 Algebra I and II Bachelor’s Degree
ELL PD workshops

P2 27 Math 8 and Pre-Algebra Bachelor’s Degree
ELL PD workshops

P3 12 Algebra 1, AP Calculus
Department Head
PhD
ELL certified from WA

P4 17 Advanced Algebra, Pre-
Calculus
Master’s Degree
ELL PD workshops

P5 15 Algebra I and II, Geometry Bachelor’s Degree
Previous ELL teacher and
Cambridge ELL certification

P6 10 Math 8 and Pre-Algebra,
Algebra I
Master’s Degree
No formal ELL Training

P7 21 AP Statistics, Senior
Seminar
Master’s Degree
No Formal ELL Training

56
Impact of COVID-19
While the tablet implementation program was started on the intended date, there was an
impact on the program due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Beginning in mid-January 2020, the
Chinese Education Office took protective measures to safeguard students by delaying the return
to school until mid-April. This decision caused CSIS to transition all classes online for remote
learning beginning the first week of March 2020. This resulted in the tablet integration program
to be expanded to other subjects to ensure all students had equal access to the curriculum and
instruction. This decision was also made to standardize the way content was to be delivered to all
the students in every subject. However, due to the pandemic, the initial in-person training offered
by the Apple supplier was canceled which placed the burden of initial training on the teachers
during the first few weeks of remote learning. Additionally, all the professional development for
the devices was moved online to the learning management system (LMS) on Microsoft Teams
where teachers created their own how-to videos and held discussions of best practices. This
created frustration for all stakeholders in the first few weeks of the program since everyone had
to learn how to use the LMS and tablets in this new remote learning environment. Then, in mid-
April 2020, the Chinese Education Office decided the pandemic was no longer a threat in
Southern China and allowed in-person classes to resume as normal.
Findings Related to Knowledge Influences
The first research question sought to uncover whether the teachers had the knowledge to
fully integrating the 1:1 tablet devices into their daily curriculum and instruction. The interviews
began by asking questions to establish the teachers’ positionality on the role of technology in the
classroom and whether they felt the technology was essential, supportive, or non-essential to
their mathematics pedagogy. Then the participants were asked about their procedural knowledge
and examples from their classroom that demonstrated this knowledge. Additionally, they were

57
asked to describe their integration effort and rank their perceived effectiveness on a scale of one
to five. This evidence was also compared to observational data taken from each teachers’
classroom in order to uncover the extent of the teachers’ procedural knowledge being practiced
in the classroom. Finally, teachers were then asked to describe their entire lesson planning
process so that the researcher could assess their reflective practice. Document analysis also
provided further evidence of the extent that reflective practices were being used by the
mathematics teachers. The analysis of the interviews, observations, and documents uncovered
three significant findings related to procedural and metacognitive knowledge and are presented
below.
Finding 1: Teachers Ideology—Technology Can Support Instruction but not Essential
Holden (2011) established teacher ideology to be a significant barrier under the following
circumstances: the teacher does not like the technology, is uncomfortable using technology, or
simply feels it adds little value to their teaching. In order to examine the teachers’ knowledge
and motivation, the first two interview questions were used to establish the teachers’
positionality on the role of technology in the classroom. All seven teachers were asked about
their general thoughts about the role of technology in education as well as how technology helps
or hinders mathematics instruction.
While all teachers acknowledged technology had a role in mathematics education, only
Participant 3 viewed technology as “central” to the way they did things and further stated they “would
not want to teach without it.” Four participants saw technology as playing a supportive role in their
classroom which simplified some tasks in the classroom; however, they remained unconvinced the iPads
would revolutionize their mathematics pedagogy. Participant 7 summarized this view by stating, “I will
used it for now, but the jury is still out on how useful it’ll be at helping the ELL kidos.” Participant 5
viewed the tablet program as non-essential and even expressed contempt for “management forcing these

58
devices into” their classrooms. Throughout the interview, Participant 5 expressed dissatisfaction with
having to use the device and even cited this program as “one of the reasons I’m moving on to another
school.” Table 6 contains highlights of each participants response to the above two questions. These
responses were then categorized as technology is essential, technology supports, or technology is non-
essential to indicate how they viewed the role of technology in their classroom.
Table 6

Participants Comments About the Role of Technology in Education

Participant Response
P1 (supports) “Yea, of course it’s important. I’d be remiss to say otherwise. Students
need to know how to use tech in today’s new world…not critical to the
way I do things though…but it does provide some useful visuals for
certain topics. I do however prefer the TI-84 over any app [on the iPad]
though…[I] wanna teach the way they’re gunna be tested. But the
majority of what I teach can be done without [technology].”

P2 (non-essential) “Well… It’s the way things are trending. Although I prefer to use the
whiteboard…just the way I teach… better yet blackboard and chalk.”

P3 (essential) “My iPad Pro is central to the way I share content with students. I
would not want to teach without it. Sharing my lesson materials and
[recorded] voice with the kids after each class is powerful [and an]
excellent way to review, especially for ELLs.”

P4 (supports) “I see [technology] as a support and visual aid in mathematics. It
speeds up many processes but can make students lazy and more
dependent on devices. … [technology is a] doubled edged sword.”

P5 (non-essential) “[I use it] mainly for graphing and modeling when necessary.
However, the less I use it, the fewer headaches I have. Sure, [it was]
useful during the virus [Covid-19 pandemic] but now I only use it
when necessary…still prefer homework and notes on paper and seeing
student work. I’m old-school, kids need this experience too…one of
the reasons I’m moving on to another school [referring to the iPad
program].”

P6 (supports) “Well [technology] is certainly beneficial for ELL students if they use
it well. So I do appreciate that support. However [I am] finding it more
of a distraction at times. [I use it] mainly for assessments, and
homework. Technology should be taught in [a] technology class, not
by a math teacher. [There is] enough on my plate…I implement

59
[technology] when it simplifies my life or assists in demonstrating a
concept.”

P7 (support) “Learning aid for sure…verify complex calculations, graphing,
analyzing statistics, and simplifying the tedious calculations of the
past. As for the iPads in particular, that is yet to be determined…I will
used it for now, but the jury is still out on how useful it’ll be at helping
the ELL kidos…[The iPad] does reduce the weight of their book bag
though.”

As researchers stated, teacher ideology, in particular, impacts what individuals adopt as
an action plan, and therefore, determines whether or not a teacher will choose to integrate
technology into their curriculum (Holden & Rada, 2011). This evidence shows that five out of
seven teachers do not view this technology program as essential and downplayed its importance.
While these five teachers did acknowledge the importance of students learning how to use
technology, they reduced the tablet device to a support role in their classroom and Participant 5
even stated, “I [would] prefer [these] devices weren’t in my classroom.” Only Participants 3 and
6 expressed that they valued the addition of these devices in their curriculum and saw them as
beneficial to achieving the stakeholder goal of reducing the ELL achievement gap. Participant 6
explicitly cited these devices were “certainly beneficial for ELL students” and Participant 3
stated they were a powerful tool “especially for ELLs.”
Finding 2: Teachers Need More Practice and Skill Development
According to Johnson (2017), even though someone may be proficient at using technology on a
personal level, this proficiency does not always translate to successful integration in the classroom.
Niess (2011) further explained that successful and effective integration of technology in the mathematics
classroom is a complex process and places significant demands on the teacher. This implies that a
teacher must have a high level of skills in using the device to be productive in the classroom.
Additionally, the impact of COVID-19 further complicated the rollout of this program by eliminating
the initial training offered by the Apple supplier—essential for developing procedural knowledge with

60
the device. In order to examine the teachers’ procedural knowledge about effective integration, teachers
were asked about how they felt about their ability to use the tablets to teach mathematics. In additional
they were asked to rank their ability as high, medium or low.
In answering these questions, four participants ranked their overall ability in implementing the
tablets as low. These low self-assessments were also expressed when they stated their knowledge was
“limited at best” (P1), “know enough to be dangerous” (P2), “[I] just don’t know enough to be
effective.” Participant 4 and Participant 6 were more positive on their ability and ranked themselves as
medium. Despite being occasionally challenged by the device, Participant 4 did express they had “the
basics of all the apps” and was “[putting] them [the iPads] to work” in their classroom. Participant 6
viewed the device as a “professional growth opportunity” and even though they were a beginner at using
the devices, they remarked, “My workflow is getting more natural as time goes on.” Participant 3 ranked
their ability as high and stated they had used an iPad Pro in the classroom for three years so their
knowledge of the device and how to implement it was “solid.” Table 7 contains example comments
from teachers about their procedural knowledge with using the tablets in the classroom as well as the
ranking of their perceived ability as low, medium or high.
Table 7

Participants Comments About Their Procedural Knowledge

Participant Response
P1 (low) “limited at best…but slowly figuring things out”

P2 (low) “I know enough to be dangerous…[knowing how to use the iPads] is
not that important to me, but I get by…assign and collect homework
via the LMS is convenient.”

P3 (high) “I feel I am pretty good at using my device…don’t know it all but I can
do everything I need to. I’ve used my iPad pro for the last three
years…[my] previous school used iPads…I’m solid [in my
proficiency].”

P4 (medium) “I have the basics of all the apps, but I’m not using them always in
class…I can’t wrap my head around the classroom management

61
piece...it’s hard and disruptive to transition back and forth [teaching
with the iPad or the whiteboard]. I do put them [the iPads] to work
though.”

P5 (low) “I know [the iPads could] have been much more useful during the
[online schooling] just don’t know enough to be effective…no time to
learn. I focused more on [lesson] production and getting content out.”

P6 (medium) “It is a professional growth opportunity…Well definitely a beginner
but getting better. My workflow is getting more natural as time goes
on.”

P7 (low) “I am not really into the Apple ecosystem so still struggling to adapt.
Surface Pros would have been easier…[I’m] much more confident in
Windows”

The findings indicated that despite all teachers using the devices on a daily basis, six out of seven
teachers needed more procedural knowledge about integrating the tablets into their curriculum. Four of
the teachers described their ability as low, two as medium, and only one teacher described their ability
as high. Five of the teachers attributed their lack of procedural knowledge due to the quick rollout of the
program coupled with the lack of in-person professional development. Participant 7 expressed this by
saying, “I’m not into Apple, it would have been hugely helpful to have had some proper training before
starting this [1:1 integration program].” Participant 6 expressed, “we should’ve waited until we were
back in school before starting this…but I get it…some kids needed devices.” These comments best
summarize the impact of COVID-19 on the rollout of the tablet program. CSIS needed to provide access
to the LMS and curriculum; however, the initial training offered by the Apple supplier was canceled due
to the pandemic, forcing teachers and students to learn how to use the devices on their own and limiting
their procedural knowledge. Even Participant 3, who is very capable with Apple devices, stated the
rollout was “challenging for sure” during the online learning but “really appreciated all the kids having
the same device.” Thus, even though the initial rollout was challenging, Participant 3 expressed it well
by saying, “it was the lesser of several evils during this extraordinary time [referring to the COVID-19

62
Pandemic].” With only one teacher expressing confidence in their procedural knowledge, this evidence
validates the gap in procedural knowledge.
After the participants described the procedural knowledge and challenges they faced
during implementation, the researcher asked them about their effectiveness of this integration
and how students were using these devices in class. In describing and ranking their effectiveness,
four teachers stated they were just below average in implementing the device in their classroom.
Participant 1 best summarized their below average ranking by saying:
The device is great when everything lines up, meaning you have good simulation which is very
interactive and allows students to visualize the concept your studying. But I can’t do this every
day, it would be nice to have a list of simulations, apps, or visuals to use by lesson. This would
make it easier to use in class. For now I am limited by what I know and how much time I can
devote to finding useful stuff, so it depends on my ability and on the topic.
Participant 5 and Participant 7 ranked their effectiveness as average and this was also supported by their
description of how they integrated the devices. While Participant 5 described occasionally integrating
models and simulations, Participant 7 limited the integration to the interactive textbook and using apps
to keep the students organized as well as remarking they “still rely on a lot of paper worksheets.”
Furthermore, Participant 7 also mentioned that they “don’t always know what to use when” when
describing their ability at knowing how to best integrate the device within a particular mathematic
topic—a similar frustration as Participant 1. Participant 3 ranked their effectiveness as above average
and described a robust integration strategy in their classroom. Not only do they use the device
throughout the class, but the teacher has excellent command of various apps and simulations that can be
integrated purposefully which is exemplified in the following comment:
I have two go to apps that I use every lesson and students benefit greatly from their use. For
example, if I am teaching quadratics, I will use DESMOS [a graphing app] to make several

63
visuals for students. I’m able to change several variables, then copy and paste screen shots of the
graphs into my lesson notes in Notability [a notetaking app]. So essentially, I am able to tailor
the lesson to their individual needs on the fly. Best of all, I give them the lesson notes at the end
of class which also records my voice. It’s powerful stuff.
Table 8 summaries their responses with example quotes and their perceived effectiveness ranking in
using the tablet devices.
Table 8

Participants Comments About Their Integration

Participant Response
P1 (ranking 2) “The simulations are effective at getting across difficult concepts in a
visual way. But I can’t do this every day…depends on the
[mathematical] topic.”

P2 (ranking 2) “I find the digital textbook to be very useful as well as the tap to
translate feature for ELLs. It works well…However, I have to admit, I
often just have to see what works and what doesn’t for
myself…DESMOS, Khan Academy, YouTube and Notability are
great.”

P3 (ranking 4) “I have two go to apps [Notability and DESMOS] that I use every
lesson and students benefit greatly from their use…its powerful stuff.”

P4 (ranking 2) “I assign readings but hard to know who does it or not. I feel the Low
English [ability] students do get some good use out of this…use
Notability for the textbook and Teams for the LMS.”

P5 (ranking 3) “I do use it for modeling and sims, occasional YouTube [videos] but
not every student has a VPN [the ability to use YouTube in China].

P6 (ranking 2) “I don’t usually let them take their devices out, only if critical for the
lesson. I use mine with the smart board, and they do their homework
with the devices.”

P7 (ranking 3)

“I use some of the visual in the digital textbook. Links to the videos are
slow and irritating so don’t use those. I use [the] Notability [app] to
help them keep organized…still rely on a lot of paper worksheets.”

64
While none of the participants ranked themselves as very effective or very ineffective,
one participant ranked themselves as above average, two ranked themselves as average, and the
remaining four participants ranked themselves as less than average at being effective. The
average of the seven participants’ rankings is 2.6 on a scale of 1 to 5 which is slightly below
average in effectiveness. This overall perception of lack of effectiveness is further supported by
all the respondents remarking in some form that they have limits to their procedural knowledge
of how the device is used in the classroom. Additionally, several teachers expressed uncertainty
in the classroom procedures of how to effectively integrate these devices. This range in
classroom procedures is exemplified by Participant 3 describing a well-established classroom
practice to Participant 2 taking an experimental approach of “seeing what works and what
doesn’t.”
Observational Findings of Effective Integration
Observations provided additional evidence of procedural knowledge and effective
technology usage in supporting mathematics instruction. The participants all agreed to allow the
researcher to conduct an observation for which the date and time was selected at random by the
researcher. This was done to ensure that the lesson observed would be an average representation
of the participant’s typical lesson instead of a staged lesson deliberately designed for the
researcher. First the researcher recorded the number of iPad applications that were used during
the lesson. During the seven observations, an average of 2.3 applications were used with
Participant 3 using the most, and Participant using the least. Next was the number of different
visualizations, models and simulations used during the lesson. Six out of seven participants used
on average 3.3 visuals during their lesson. Participant 6 used the most with a total of eight,
Participant 3 used six, and the least was Participant 1 who used his device minimally. Then the
number of times technology was used to differentiate the lesson was recorded. Five of the seven

65
participants used technology to differentiate, with Participant 3 and 6 differentiating the most,
and Participant 1 and 7 differentiating the least. Finally, the researcher coded the degree of
technology integration using the following categories defined by Parker et al. (2019): minimally
integrated, partially integrated and fully integrated. Minimally integrated is defined as minimal
usage of technology with no distinguishable academic support or added value to the lesson
content (Parker et al., 2019). Partially integrated is defined as technology being used in a way
that differentiates as well as allows students to manipulate and analyze a mathematical concept
(Parker et al., 2019). Fully integrated is defined as technology being used in a student-centered
approach with dynamic visualizations, models, simulations which is differentiated for multiple
levels and clearly enhances the classroom experience. In fully integrated classrooms, students are
allowed to learn in ways that would not otherwise be possible without the technology (Parker et
al., 2019). Table 8 summarizes the findings from the observations.
Table 9
How Participants Support Mathematics Instruction in the Classroom

Participant iPad Apps Used Visuals/Models Differentiation Integration Degree
Level
P1 1 0 0 Minimally
Integrated

P2 2 4 1 Partially Integrated

P3 5 6 3 Fully Integrated

P4 2 1 1 Partially Integrated

P5 2 3 1 Minimally
Integrated

P6 2 8 3 Fully Integrated

P7 2 1 0 Minimally
Integrated

66

Of the seven observations, Participants 1, 5, and 7 were minimally integrated in how they
used technology in their classroom. This classification was assigned according to the observation
rubric in Appendix D. Participant 1 conducted most of the lesson on the whiteboard and only
used the tablet at the end of the lesson to go over the assigned homework on Microsoft Teams.
Participant 5 and seven used their devices to present a slide show for the lesson where Participant
5 had three visualizations for how to factor and one diagram that differentiated the lesson
content, whereas Participant 7 only presented one diagram which was used for the majority of
the class. Both of these lessons could have been conducted without technology and there was no
clear evidence of added value. Participant 4 presented a lesson on trigonometry and used an
online simulator to demonstrate how amplitude, wavelength and phase shift all interacted.
Students were all engaged and could use sliders within the online app to visualize the changes of
these three variables. Even though one simulation was uses, it was effective in allowing this
content to be accessible to multiple ability level students. In Participant 2’s lesson, the teacher
provided several examples of graphing before having students make their own graphs on the iPad
app DESMOS. Most of the students were engaged in the activity with only a few needing to be
prodded along by the teacher.
Participant 3 and Participant 6 lessons utilized the iPads in a fully integrated way as
defined by the rubric in Appendix D. It was very clear from the onset of the lessons that they
both had command of the notetaking app called Notability in which they used to present their
lecture, view the textbook and draw on the whiteboard by using the device. Participant 3 utilized
several animated gif images that could be annotate by drawing arrows and other helpful
information on the screen while explaining the concept of translational and rotational motion.
Once they completed the explanation, a short two-minute video was shown, followed by an
online simulation. Participant 6 was instructing on conic sections and used a combination of

67
Notability and a 3D model that could be manipulated on screen for the students to observe. This
engaged the students, and once the demonstration was over, they were allowed to give it a try.
After students had a chance to explore this 3D model, they were then given a task to write
various equations for conical sections. This part of the lesson was broken up into two levels plus
a challenge activity which was superbly differentiated. Lastly, both teachers took advantage of
their device being remotely connected to the whiteboard and moved around the room as they
instructed and engaged with their students—managing behavior issues through proximity and
improving teacher-student interaction. While these two teachers demonstrated a high level of
procedural knowledge, the other five teachers were observed to have low to moderate procedural
knowledge and lacked the dynamic integration of the device into their lessons that Participant 3
and 6 demonstrated—supporting the validated gap in procedural knowledge.
Finding 3: Teachers Need a More Reflective Practice
According to research conducted by Stoilescu (2015), successful technology integration
demands that a teacher reflect and periodically redesign their instructional strategies to address
student needs. To analyze teachers’ reflective process during lesson creation, participants were
asked to describe their typical lesson planning process using the tablets from beginning to end. In
asking participants to describe their lesson creation process, the researcher never mentioned or
asked about reflection in order not to lead the participants responses. Of the seven participants,
four organically mentioned or alluded to reflection being a part of their lesson creation process.
Participant 6 described how reflection worked to improve their teaching across five sections of
the same class by stating “I consider what went well and what needs work. This does carry
forward into the next sections.” Participant 3 described their reflective practice as “constant
refining” process, and Participant 4 stated that “Reflecting on the success and failures of the
lesson informs what I do moving into my follow-up lessons on any given topic.” Participant 1

68
did not mention reflection during their response of how they planned lessons; however, there was
evidence of a reflective process during the interview when they were asked about how they
overcome difficulties when they stated, “It’s important that I take stock of what was effective
and what was not. It shapes what I do in [the] future in dealing with challenges.” Table 10
summaries their responses with example quotes which highlight the participants reflective
process.
Table 10
Participants Reflective Practices in Integrating 1:1 Tablets

Participant Response
P1 “It’s important that I take stock of what was effective and what was
not. It shapes what I do in [the] future in dealing with challenges.”

P3 “What I enjoy [about the iPad] is I can cut out what doesn’t work and
keep the good. I am constantly refining my lessons…everything is
organized and saved so [my lessons] just get better and better each
year.”

P4 “Reflecting on the success and failures of the lesson informs what I do
moving into my follow-up lessons on any given topic.”

P6 “I consider what went well and what needs work. This does carry
forward into the next sections. I teach five sections of the same class so
the last class gets my best lesson.”

Of the seven interviews conducted, there was only evidence that four teachers were
practicing a reflective practice periodically to address student needs. Additional evidence further
supported Participant 3’s reflective process when conducting the document analysis. Reflective
practices were mentioned in the mathematics department discussion form; however, theses
reflective discussions primarily occurred during the first three weeks of online schooling when
teachers were first learning how to integrate these devices. These discussions were primarily
focused on developing a list of how-two videos and best practices. Participant 3 who had the

69
most experience emerged as a leader of these discussions and posted the majority of the content.
However, these conversations and collaborations were nonexistent once students were back in
the classrooms in April. Participate number 2 remarked in the interview that
[it] would have been nice if we were given a time and a space to share what’s working
and what’s not. We definitely need more collaboration…perhaps next year…virus
willing…but this definitely needs to happen.
Then, during the end of school meeting, the high school director emphasized that teachers need
to reflect on the past year and come ready to discuss “the good, the bad, and the ugly so we can
have a rich discussion of where to take the next school year when we get back in August.”
Throughout the meeting, administration mentioned “capturing and reflecting on” what was going
well with the new LMS and iPad program. Even though four of the seven teachers described a
reflective process and administration called on teachers to reflect on the past school year, a
periodic and clear reflective process does not currently exist for all teachers. Therefore,
metacognitive knowledge of a reflective practice is validated as a gap.
Findings Related to Motivational Influences
Motivation plays a critical role in high school mathematics teachers achieving the
stakeholder and organizational goal. According to Clark and Estes (2008), when addressing gaps
in motivation, belief is almost everything. In this evaluation, research question number one
sought to uncover the motivational influences essential for mathematics teacher to fully integrate
the 1:1 tablet device into their daily curriculum and instruction. The first motivation influence
evaluated was teacher self-efficacy in using the tablets in their curriculum and instruction.
Several interview questions were designed to uncover the teachers’ beliefs in their capacity to
successfully integrate the 1:1 tablet device into their classroom. The second motivational
influence evaluated was expectancy value, which is the perceived importance people attribute to

70
doing a task is vital. According to Eccles (2006), having a high value of a task not only increases
motivation but it is also a predictor of performance. During the interviews, teachers were asked
several questions to investigate how they valued the 1:1 tablet device, and in particular how they
valued it in achieving the organizational goal of reducing the ELL achievement gap.
Understanding the level of self-efficacy and expectancy value teachers had in regard to this tablet
integration program is critical to uncovering the motivational influences that contribute to
achieving the stakeholder and organizational goals.
Finding 4: Low Self-Efficacy in Fully Integrating Tablets into the Curriculum
An individual’s self-efficacy (or lack of) is a strong predictor of their capacity to perform a
task (Bandura, 2000; Pajares, 2006). According to Clark and Estes (2008) having a high self-
efficacy is essential to improved motivation, willingness to engage in a task, and determination
to persist in the task. Therefore, as teachers begin integrating tablets into their curriculum, they
need to believe they are capable of being successful; if they do not, it is unlikely that they will
persist in this program. Additionally, Chai et al. (2015) found that teachers with high self-
efficacy with their technology capacity were more likely to use technology in their instruction on
a regular basis and had more positive experiences with technology in their classroom. Thus,
understanding teacher self-efficacy could provide insight into the teacher’s motivation and
persistence of technology usage in their classroom. In order to examine the teachers’ self-
efficacy, teachers were asked several interview questions about their technology ability,
confidence, and challenges they faced in integrating the devices and how they persisted to
overcome these challenges. They were also asked to describe how they felt about trying new
technology in their classroom and how often they tried to integrate new strategies into their
lessons.

71
While the findings from the interviews did reveal all teachers were persisting in using the device
to some degree, only one teacher expressed a high degree of confidence in integrating 1:1 tablets into the
curriculum. Participant 5 expressed, “I’m not that confident in using new stuff. I stick to a few apps I am
comfortable with and a web browser.” While this participant did use the technology, there was a clear
lack of confidence in going beyond what they knew and when asked about overcoming challenges they
said, “when something fails, I default to the whiteboard.” Participant 4 and 6 also expressed little
confidence in using these devices beyond a few basic apps and both cited the need for “some good solid
training next year.” Participant 1, 2 and 7 also stated they “haven’t really gone beyond the basics” and
“rarely try something new” and they cited the lack of training and time as the major impediment to their
self-efficacy. Participant 7 stated, “The way I use the device is limited by my imagination” and “if I had
more time and training, then perhaps I would be comfortable trying new things.” Participant 3 expressed
a high self-efficacy by stating “I know this device pretty well” and continued “I love using new
technical in my classroom.” There was also supporting evidence in the document analysis when
Participant 3 emerged as a leader in creating how-to video, leading forum discussions and helping the
other teachers with their devices. Table 11 summaries their responses with example quotes related to
self-efficacy in using the tablet devices. The table also contains the common themes of time and training
that several of the participants attributed their low self-efficacy to.
Table 11

Participants Comments About Their Self-Efficacy

Participant Response
P1 (time & training) “I haven’t really gone beyond the basics. I will slowly build into this
device. When something doesn’t work, I just cut and run. I don’t have
the time or patients to figure it out during a class. [Management] need
to set aside some time where we all put our heads together and put a
list or something together of good practices. We just didn’t have time
this year to give it a proper go the way this program was intended.”

72
P2 (time & training) “I often just have to see what works and what doesn’t for myself…I
rarely try something new, no time to figure it out honestly. We need a
few good PD sessions on this stuff along with time.”

P3 (training) “I love using new tech in my classroom. At my last school I purchased
my own iPad Pro to use it for instruction. It streamlines everything I
do, and it consistently improves the way I teach…I am constantly able
to make my lessons better and better. It would be nice if the school
brought in an Apple expert for a few PDs to show us what new tools
are out there…Really, the only challenges I’ve had is with
connectivity, but that’s a China thing, nothing we can do about that…I
know this device pretty well.”

P4 (training) “Well management has to do a better job at helping us out with these
[iPads]. They were basically through at us with the expectation that we
would figure things out…Need to learn the ins and outs of the device
before I feel I can really use it effectively.”

P5 “I’m not that confident in using new stuff. I stick to a few apps I am
comfortable with and a web browser…when something fails, I default
to the whiteboard.”

P6 “I do have a tendency to stick to what I know, so once I know
something works, I go with that. Keep it simple. It would be nice
though to get some good solid training next year.”

P7 (time & training)

“If I had more time and training, then perhaps I would be comfortable
trying new things. I just wanted to make it through this extraordinary
school year.…The way I use the device is limited by my imagination,
which is fundamentally flawed anyways. I still rely on a lot of paper
worksheets.”

According to Bandura’s (2000), definition of self-efficacy is the belief in one’s
capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action. During the interviews, only Participant
3 expressed confidence in their ability to utilize the device in various situations. The other
participants limited the usage of the device to strategies they knew but also expressed they would
quickly abandon its usage if it was not working the way they intended. Additionally, a common
theme that participants attributed to their low self-efficacy was the lack of training and time with
using the device. Five of the participants expressed the need of additional training, and four also
expressed the need for more time with the device to learn how to use it. According to Kopcha

73
(2012), implementing technology effectively in the classroom takes significant time and training
to be done well. This evidence shows that the lack of training impacted teacher self-efficacy and
demonstrates the need for CSIS to institute regular training, modeling and feedback. Therefore,
due to the lack of confidence expressed by six of the participants, teacher self-efficacy was
validated as a gap.
Finding 5: Low Utility Value in the Traditional Classroom
According to Pintrich (2004), when a person finds a task of value to them as an
individual, then higher levels of motivation can be achieved. Eccles (2006) took this further in
his definition of expectancy value theory which states that the perceived importance people
attribute to doing a task is vital not only for increased motivation but is also a predictor of
performance. In evaluating teachers’ expectancy value during the interviews, it became clear
there was a distinction with how they valued the device during online schooling verses the
traditional classroom. While all teachers interviewed expressed that they highly valued
technology during online schooling throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, only one teacher stated
they highly valued the device in the traditional classroom.
Expectancy Value During Online Schooling
The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique challenge for CSIS and required teachers to
conduct online lessons from the beginning of March to mid-April 2020. To assist in this effort,
administration decided to rollout the 1:1 tablet program on schedule and got the iPad tablets in
the hands of every high school student in late-February. The goal of the administration was to
standardize the device used for delivering lesson content as well as simplify the class layout on
the Microsoft Teams LMS. While teachers, students and parents alike all expressed frustrations
with learning how to conduct and participate in this new online environment, all teachers

74
appreciated and valued having one standardized device. Even the staunches critic of the
integration program expressed that they valued the tablet program by saying:
It was a very good decision to give all the kids their iPads …once I had the basics down,
it simplified pushing out content to the students. It was hard troubleshooting at the
beginning but couldn’t imagine how much worse it would’ve been if everyone chose
their own platform to use. Cellphones, desktops, and these other crappy tablets they use
here. What a mess it would’ve been. So while I would’ve greatly preferred the Surface
Pro… I appreciate having one single device.
Participant 6 attributed the value of these devices to job security in saying, “while many schools
closed down and cut jobs, these devices kept us working. Having them and knowing how to use
it is job security.” Participant 3 who is the strongest supporter of the program and most
technologically capable with the device stated:
Once the students knew how to interact with the LMS and zoom, it was business as usual
[for my teaching]. Other than not being in the same room with the students, my
classroom experience was nearly [the] same to the way I do things. I delivered my lesson
as normal by projecting onto everyone’s device, kids engaged and asked questions, and
the best part was I could do this from a beach in Thailand.
Throughout the interviews, all teachers expressed a high degree expectancy value during online
schooling. Teachers recognized the benefits of one standard device, appreciated being connected
to their students, and even attributed their job security to this program. Even administration
remarked in a meeting how purchasing these devices before the COVID-19 pandemic “saved our
asses” and attributed them to “keeping us afloat in this difficult time… [other international
schools] were not so fortunate.” Thus, it was evident that administration valued these devices for
more than their intended goal of reducing the ELL achievement gap, in that they allowed CSIS to

75
remain operational when, according to CSIS administration, several other schools were forced to
return tuition payments for closing.
Expectancy Value During Traditional Schooling
Even though all teachers expressed a high degree of expectancy value during online
schooling, this did not translate to the same value when students returned to school for in-person
lessons. Participant 1, 2 and 5 all expressed a low degree of value once they returned to their
classroom. They all held a preference towards teaching the way they used to without the device.
Only Participant 3 expressed a high degree of value when stating, “My iPad Pro is central to the
way I share content with students. I would not want to teach without it.” Participants 4, 6 and 7
were mixed on how they valued the device in the classroom. While they found the devices useful
for support, visual aids and complex calculations, they all cited additional challenges these
devices brought into their classroom. As for ELL support, on three participants acknowledged
the value these devices provided to the ELL students. Table 12 contains example comments
about the expectance value from each participant and indicates which participant values the
device for supporting ELLs.
Table 12

Participants Comments About the Expectancy Value of Technology

Participant Response
P1 (low value) “[iPads are] not critical to the way I do things though… the
majority of what I teach can be done without
[technology]…and that’s what I tend to do.”

P2 (low value)
(Supports ELLs)
“I prefer to use the whiteboard…just the way I teach… better
yet blackboard and chalk… I find the digital textbook to be
very useful as well as the tap to translate feature for ELLs.”

P3 (high value)
(Supports ELLs)
“My iPad Pro is central to the way I share content with
students. I would not want to teach without it. Sharing my
lesson materials and [recorded] voice with the kids after each

76
class is powerful [and an] excellent way to review, especially
for ELLs.”

P4 (mixed value) “I see [technology] as a support and visual aid in mathematics.
It speeds up many processes…I do find the devices useful…but
a double edge sword.”

P5 (low value) “[I use iPads] when necessary. However, the less I use it, the
fewer headaches I have. Sure, [it was] useful during the virus
[COVID-19 pandemic] but now I only use it when
necessary…still prefer homework and notes on paper and
seeing student work. I’m old-school, kids need this experience
too.”

P6 (mixed value)
(Supports ELLs)
“Well [technology] is certainly beneficial for ELL students if
they use it well. So I do appreciate that support. However [I
am] finding it more of a distraction at times …I implement
[technology] when it simplifies my life or assists in
demonstrating a concept.”

P7 (mixed value) “Learning aid for sure…verify complex calculations, graphing,
analyzing statistics, and simplifying the tedious calculations of
the past. As for the iPads in particular, that is yet to be
determined. [The iPad] does reduce the weight of their book
bag though.”

During the online schooling all teacher expressed they valued the 1:1 device; however,
once students returned to the traditional classroom, only one teacher expressed a high degree of
value, three teachers were mixed, and three teachers expressed a low degree of value. This
evidence suggests that once the need to connect to students digitally was removed, the value of
the device was diminished. While some teachers continue appreciate the additional support, it is
clear six of the seven participants attribute the majority of the 1:1 device’s value to connectivity.
These findings indicate that a gap remains in the intended value of these devices in achieving the
organizational goal of closing the ELL achievement gap. Even though three participants did
value these devices for the support they provided ELL students, four of the seven participants did
not.

77
Findings Related to Organizational Influences
The second research question sought to uncover the organizational influences which
either support or hinder the teachers’ capacity to fully integrate the 1:1 tablet device into their
curriculum and instruction—potentially leading to a performance gap. According to Rueda
(2011), performance gaps could be attributed to the beliefs and value systems present at the
organization which influence the expected norms and behaviors of individuals. As teachers
implement the 1:1 tablet program, it is critical to investigate the extent that cultural models and
settings influence the teachers’ ability to successfully integrate the tablets into their lessons. This
evaluation first focused on the cultural model of trust relationships between teachers and
administration. Then, the cultural setting of a learning culture along with a supportive learning
environment were evaluated. These two closely related cultural settings provided insight to the
extent initial training, ongoing professional development and support that were being given to
the teachers. The final cultural setting evaluated was the ongoing technical support that the
teachers received throughout the 1:1 tablet integration. The analysis of the interviews and
documents validated two significant findings related to organizational influences and are
presented below.
Finding 6: Trusting Relationships Exists between Teachers and Administration
According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective leaders know how to build strong
communication skills among members of an organization in order to build capacity.
Additionally, effective leaders know how to create and manage good working relationships with
stakeholders (Denning, 2016). In probing deeper with each of the participants about their
relationship with the administration, it was clear there was extensive trust between the teachers
and administration. While not all participants agreed with the decisions the administration had
made, they unanimously described their relationship with the administration as personable,

78
trusting, caring, and rock-solid. Participant 3 recalled a moment when the head of school
“dropped everything and make time” to help them with a challenging personal situation.
Participant 6 remarked that the head of school “is the friendliest and most down to earth director
that I’ve ever had.” Participant 7 had similar comments about both the director and head of high
school by stating they are “easy going, hands off, trusts what I’m doing…absolutely zero
complaints about them.” Participant 5 was more candid in stating, “I’m surprised they still put up
with me. I know I’m a challenging personality, but we have a solid relationship.” Participant 1
stated, “I enjoy when they pop into my classroom to see what’s going on…no concern at all with
the random drop ins…I know they’re not out to get me like other management I’ve worked for
[referring to previous school].” Participant 2 stated, “I find [admin names] both very respectful
and easy to work with, really hope they stick around a while.” This evidence shows a strong and
trusting relationships exist between all the participants and administration; therefore, this
influence emerged as an asset.
Finding 7: COVID-19’s Negative Impact on the Learning Culture
As stated by Clark and Estes (2006), ensuring staff’s resource needs are being met is
correlated with an organization’s performance. Where in this case, the resource needed is an
initial training program on how to best implement the 1:1 tablet device. During the interviews,
all seven teachers expressed their frustration with the lack of initial training and attributed much
of the challenges they had during initial rollout to this shortfall. Additionally, management also
recognized this as a major impediment to this program and repeated apologized for “throwing
[the iPads] at [the teachers] without any initial training.” However, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, all the onsite training that was going to be provided by the Apple supplier was
canceled. In a schoolwide email, administration further apologized by stating “with the sudden
need to go to online schooling, there is just no time to source out another training, we’re going to

79
have to come together like a family and work together.” While CSIS initially planned a robust
initial training to develop a positive learning culture, the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily
prevented the organization from providing this training—negatively impacting the learning
culture.
Finding 8: Lack of a Supportive Learning Environment
According to researchers, when learning how to implement a new tablet device in the classroom,
teachers must be given enough time, training, hands-on experience and support to learn how to
effectively integrate the device into their curriculum (Bennett, 2017; Hesser, 2013; Wallace & Witus,
2013). When participants were asked about the kinds of training and support they desired, as well as the
impact of leadership had on this program, two common themes emerged. In addition to needing initial
training, every participant described the need for collaboration. Participant 3 summarized the sentiment
when they stated, “I would like to have the time for mathematics teachers to come together and discuss
how technology is being used in our classrooms and learn from each other.” Participants 1, 2, 3 and 5
also expressed the desire to be “give a time and space to share what’s work and what’s not” (P2), but
also stated they needed “the time to do so, not just have something extra added to our schedule” (P2).
Table 13 contains example comments from the participants related to collaboration.
Table 13

Participants Comments About Collaboration

Participant Response
P1 “I would like to meet once a month or so to see what everyone’s doing,
not just with the tablet but also in mathematics in general…we need
time set aside to meet.”

P2 “[it] would have been nice if we were given a time and a space to share
what’s working and what’s not. We definitely need more
collaboration…perhaps next year…virus willing…but this definitely
needs to happen…we need the time to do so, not just have something
extra added to our schedule”

80
P3 “I would like to have the time for mathematics teachers to come
together and discuss how technology is being used in our classrooms
and learn from each other.”

P4 “We definitely need to collaborate more…using the forums is not
enough [referring to the collaboration forum on the LMS]”

P5 “It would be good to meet once a month to work through technical
challenges, but I want the time accounted for, it needs to be considered
a prep.”

P6 “We need a collaboration meeting to discuss strategies of what’s
working and what’s not…sometimes I feel I’m just flailing in the
wind.”

P7 “I’m hoping we have a PLC next year so we can better support each
other. I would like to know what others are finding success
with…create a list of best practices so-to-speak.”

This evidence highlights the lack of, and the need for more collaboration within the
mathematics department as well as the time to do so. In the document analysis, there was some
evidence of collaboration in the mathematics forum on the LMS, but this collaboration quickly
diminished once the teachers came back to school—even Participant 4 explicitly stated, “using
the forums is not enough.” While this evidence indicates that there is a need for more time to
collaborate at CSIS on technology, additional themes emerged on specific types of collaboration
and training support they would have liked to engage in before or during the rollout of this
program. These themes included the following: attending external PD on technology, technology
classroom management, ELL technology strategies, mathematics specific apps, and educating
Chinese students. Table 14 contains the common themes as well as how many participants stated
this theme.
Table 14

Training and Support Participants Would Have Liked to Have Received

Common Training and Support Themes Number of Participants

81
More collaboration 7

More time to collaborate 4

External PD on technology 4

Technology classroom management 3

ELL technology strategies 3

Mathematics specific apps 2

Educating Chinese students 1

The two themes that were consistently brought up by all the participants throughout the
interviews was the strong need for initial training and a time where mathematics teachers could
meet to collaborate on technology. Additionally, four of the participants emphasized being
allocated time on their schedule for this collaboration to occur. Based on this evidence, it is clear
that the gap in the supportive learning environment has been validated.
Finding 9: Technical Support Provides Support for Teachers
According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective change efforts ensure that everyone has
the resources needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then resources
should be aligned with organizational priorities. Additionally, researchers found that it is
imperative to proactively build in a plan for long-term and ongoing technical support to keep
programs up and running (Bennet, 2017; Maich et al., 2017). Of the seven teachers interviewed,
five described the technical support they received throughout the year as “very good…very
responsive” (P1), “amazing…couldn’t have been better” (P3), “Superb. Met every need and
demand I had.” (P4), “zero complaints, all good” (P5), “I’ve appreciated all the help I’ve
received…[they] definitely need a raise.” (P7). This evidence suggests that these five participants
received the support they needed throughout this 1:1 implementation program. However,
Participant 2 and Participant 6 were neutral to slightly negative on the support they received.

82
Both participants cited technical support’s inability to assist with individual iPad apps as a reason
they were not completely satisfied. However, knowledge of specific apps related to mathematics
is beyond the scope of technical support’s duties nor is it included in their job descriptions. This
type of knowledge is the responsibly of the trainers and department head. However, beyond
individual app support, Participant 2 did remark that the technical supported they received “has
been good, [with] no major complaints.” Thus, the technical support provided to the teachers
was not validated as a gap. Table 15 contains example comments about the technical support
each participant received throughout the duration of the 1:1 tablet integration program.
Table 15
Participants Comments About the Technical Support They Received
Participant Response
P1 (positive) “[They’ve] been very good. Got me up and running and very responsive.”

P2 (neutral)

“In general, it has been good…no major complaints. Would’ve been nice if
they could have put on a training or something going over all the bells and
whistles…had some initial issues with my device but we finally got it sorted
out.”

P3 (positive)

“[They] were amazing at helping all the kids with their tech issues. Really
went above and beyond. They even responded after 10pm on occasion to
help…couldn’t have been better.”

P4 (positive) “Superb. Met every need and demand I had.”

P5 (positive) “[They] certainly helped with everything they could. However, I think they
were a bit understaffed…at least at the beginning when we were online. Now
that were back in the building [I have] zero complaints…all good.”

P6 (slightly
negative)

“I would have liked if they could’ve helped more with Apple Classroom
[referring to an app] which would have help me more with classroom
management. There not really good at that stuff [referring to individual
apps]. It would be nice to get them up to speed with all the apps that we are
using. Also, it was sometimes slow when I needed to get apps pushed out to
the kids devices, but there was a lot going on and there was only two of
them.”

83
P7 (positive) “Those guys work tirelessly. I’ve appreciated all the help I’ve
received…[they] definitely need a raise.”

Summary
The results from the interviews, documents analysis and observations demonstrated that
several gaps exist in the current 1:1 tablet integration program. The first finding established the
teachers’ ideology of using the tablets in their class. Five of the seven teachers did not view these
devices as essential to their classroom and downplayed their importance whereas only three
teachers saw them as beneficial to achieving the stakeholder goal. The inability to connect the
1:1 tablet integration program to the stakeholder goal of reducing the ELL achievement gap is
likely attributed to the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Summary of Findings Related to Knowledge Influences
In evaluating knowledge influences, the second finding uncovered a significant gap in
procedural knowledge. Six out of seven teachers expressed they needed more procedural
knowledge about how to best integrate the tablets into their curriculum. In assessing their own
ability with technology, four teachers described their ability as low, two as medium, and only
one teacher described their ability as high. Five of the teachers attributed their lack of procedural
knowledge due to lack of in-person professional development which was canceled due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Lesson observation data was also consistent with these findings since
three teachers demonstrated minimal technology integration, two partial integration and two full
integration as defined by the rubric in Appendix D. Finding 3 also uncovered a gap with
teachers’ metacognitive knowledge. Four of the seven teachers provided evidence they were
practicing reflection on a periodic basis to address students’ needs. Supporting evidence of
reflection was also visible during the document analysis of the mathematics forum on the LMS

84
and the meeting minutes of the end-of-school meeting. However, despite this evidence, a gap
still exists since there is not a clear reflective process for all teachers.
Summary of Findings Related to Motivational Influences
In evaluating motivational influences, the researcher asked several questions to assess the
teachers’ beliefs about their ability to integrate the device into their curriculum to support ELLs.
Finding 4 found a significant gap in teacher self-efficacy since only one participant expressed
confidence in their ability to utilize the device in various situations. The other six participants
limited the way they integrated the device in their classroom and also expressed abandoning its
usage if it was not working the way they intended in any given lesson. Five of the participants
attributed their low self-efficacy to the lack of training and time with using the device.
The second motivational influenced evaluated was teachers’ expectancy value. Finding 5
uncovered a distinction with how teachers valued the tablet device during online schooling
versus the traditional classroom. All teachers expressed that they highly valued technology
during online schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic and no gap in expectancy value was
evident. However, once teachers were back in the traditional classroom, only one teacher
expressed a high degree of value, three teachers were mixed, and three teachers expressed a low
degree of value. This evidence suggests that the value of the device was diminished once the
need to connect to students online was removed. Furthermore, only three participants stated they
valued the device for the support it offered to ELL students which is the stakeholder goal of this
1:1 integration program; thus, a gap in expectancy value was validated.
Summary of Findings Related to Organizational Influences
In evaluating the organizational influences, the researcher sought to uncover contributing
factors that supported or hindered the teachers’ capacity to fully integrate the 1:1 tablet device
into their curriculum and instruction. The first organization influence evaluated was the cultural

85
model of trust relationships between teachers and administration. In Finding 6, it was clear there
was substantial trust between the teachers and administration; thus, this emerged as an asset. The
second organizational influence evaluated was the cultural setting of a learning culture. This was
validated as a gap in Finding 7 since the initial training program was canceled due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. During the interviews, all seven teachers expressed their frustration with
the lack of initial training and attributed much of their challenges to this gap.
In analyzing the cultural setting of the supportive learning environment, Finding 8
uncovered a gap in this organizational influence. While some evidence of collaboration was
discovered in the document analysis of the mathematics forum on the LMS, every participant
described the need for in-person collaboration. The participants also suggested types of training
and support they would like to receive: meeting weekly to monthly, attending external PD on
technology, technology classroom management, ELL technology strategies, mathematics
specific apps, and educating Chinese students. The final organizational influence evaluated was
the cultural setting of ongoing technical support. The evidence in Finding 9 indicated that all the
teachers received effective technical support throughout the school year; thus, this emerged as an
asset.

86
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this evaluation was to conduct a gap analysis to uncover the barriers to
achieving the stakeholder goal of integrating tablets into the mathematics classroom. Table 16
identifies the knowledge influences that impact the stakeholder goal of 100% of mathematics
teachers fully integrating the 1:1 tablet devices into their daily curriculum and instruction to
support ELL students by May 2020. Krathwohl (2002) defined four main types of knowledge;
factual knowledge refers to the terminology and elements of a subject, conceptual knowledge is
the classifications, theories and structures of a subject, procedural knowledge is the subject-
specific skills and metacognitive knowledge is the understanding of self-reflection of one’s own
learning. Table 16 identifies procedural and metacognitive influences that impact the success of
achieving the stakeholder goal. Additionally, Table 16 includes context specific
recommendations along with supporting citations for the recommendations.
Table 16
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge Influence

Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Teachers need to know how to
effectively integrate the device
in their lesson to support
mathematics instruction with
the 1:1 device with apps,
visualizations, models and
communication.

Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or
behaviors improves self-
efficacy, learning,
and performance
(Ackermans et al., 2019).
Provide instructor-led training
on different strategies for using
the tablets in the classroom.
Training will include
integrating homework on the
LMS along with job aids.
Teachers need to be able to
reflect on their effectiveness of
integrating the tablets into their
lessons.
Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners set goals, monitor
their performance and
evaluate their progress
towards achieving their
goals. (Mayer, 2011)
Create a professional learning
community for mathematics
teachers to discuss challenges
and successes. Create job aids
for structured communication,
goal evaluation and
engagement.

87
Increasing Teachers' Procedural Knowledge on Effectively Integrating Tablets
The findings of this study indicated that six out of seven teachers interviewed needed
more procedural knowledge about effectively integrating tablets in their lesson to support
mathematics instruction with the 1:1 device with apps, visualizations, models and
communication. A recommendation rooted in social cognitive theory has been selected to close
this procedural knowledge gap. Ackermans et al. (2019) stated that modeling helps learners
acquire new behaviors and skills. This suggests that providing instructor-led training that models
various tablet integration strategies in the classroom would support teachers in developing their
capacity to use the tablets effectively. Along with instructor led training, this recommendation
also includes providing job aids on integrating homework on the LMS, how to use key features
of Apple Classroom, and the best practices of integration workflow from lesson creation to
deliver and assessment.
Having knowledge about technology tools and their pedagogy, content, learners, and
context allows for the synthesis of difficult topics to be transformed and taught more effectively
with technology in ways that signify add value (Angeli, 2009). However, the challenges teachers
face with technology integration is that they earned degrees at a time when educational
technology was at a very different stage of development than it is today, resulting in a gap in
pedagogical skills (Koehler & Mishra, 2014). To address this gap, Denler et al. (2009) asserted
that modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improves self-efficacy, learning, and
performance, and that these behaviors will likely be adopted if the model is credible and has
functional value. Therefore, having instructor-led training that models successful classroom
strategies supported by job aids and hands on experience will enhance teacher capacity for
successfully integrating the tablets into their lessons.

88
Increasing Teachers' Metacognitive Knowledge on Effective Integration
The findings of this study discovered that four of the seven teachers needed more
knowledge on how to reflect on their technology pedagogy. A recommendation centered on
developing a teacher's ability to self-reflect on their effectiveness in integrating the tablets into
their lessons has been selected to close this knowledge gap. According to Mayer (2011) learning
and motivation are enhanced when learners set goals, monitor their performance and evaluate
their progress towards achieving their goals. This suggests that the creation of a professional
learning community (PLC) for mathematics teachers to discuss challenges and successes would
support the development of their metacognitive knowledge. The recommendation is to not only
to create a PLC, but also develop job aids for structured communication, goal evaluation and
engagement.
To optimize a teacher's development of technology skills, teacher training should adopt
reflective strategies that help teachers to develop knowledge related to both the technology and
its pedagogical uses in the classroom (Koh, 2013). Research has shown that when teachers
reflected on practice, particularly within a PLC, it has resulted in improvements in teaching
(Cavanagh, 2015; Woolway, 2019). The purpose of reflection is to develop the ability to observe
skillfully and think critically about students and their learning in order to take intelligent action
based on the understanding that emerges (Rogers, 2002). Additionally, research by Mayer (2011)
found that metacognition plays a crucial role in knowing when to utilize the appropriate process
during a given task. Therefore, it is an essential skill for teachers to be able to reflect on and
evaluate the effectiveness of the tablets during and after the lesson. This reflective process will
be supported by the PLC and job aids which will promote the development of teacher's
metacognitive knowledge.

89
Motivation Recommendations
This evaluation study was conducted to identify the gaps in motivation and uncover the
barriers to achieving the stakeholder goal of integrating tablets into the mathematics classroom.
Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that motivation is what gets people going, keeps them moving,
and determines how much effort they spend on a task. Having a high self-efficacy can positively
enhance motivation, and when motivation is enhanced, learners have positive expectancies for
success (Pajares, 2006). Furthermore, according to the theory of expectancy value, learning and
motivation are enhanced if the learner values the task (Eccles, 2006). Table 17 identifies the
motivational influences that impact the success of achieving the stakeholder goal. Additionally,
the table includes context specific recommendations along with supporting citations for the
recommendations.
Table 17
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence*

Principle and Citation Context-Specific Recommendation
Self-Efficacy – Teachers
need to believe in their
ability to implement the
tablets in their classroom
daily.

Use models and feedback
that build self-efficacy and
enhance motivation
(Pajares, 2006).

Model successful teaching
strategies using the tablets through
hands on demonstrations that show
exemplary mathematics pedagogy
and provide feedback on
performance.

Expectancy Value –
Teachers need to see the
value added by using and
implementing the tablets
into their daily lessons.
Include rationales about the
importance and utility
value of the task (Pintrich,
2004).

Materials and activities
should be relevant and
useful to the learners,
connected to their interests,
and based on real-world
tasks (Pintrich, 2004).
Cultivate a supportive professional
learning community that discusses
examples of utility value of the
tablets in the classroom.
Discussions will include impacts
on student achievement, teaching
practices, and student
engagement.

90
Improving Teacher's Self-Efficacy in Implementing 1:1 Tablets
Of the seven mathematics teachers interviewed, only one teacher expressed that they
were confident in fully integrating 1:1 tablets into the curriculum. To address this issue a
recommendation informed by self-efficacy theory was selected to close this motivational gap.
According to Pajares (2006) the use of modeling and feedback can build self-efficacy and
enhance motivation. This suggests that providing teachers with demonstrations of how to use the
tablets and then providing feedback on their classroom performance would increase their self-
efficacy. The recommendation is for the school to provide training and demonstrations with the
opportunities for implementation and feedback in helping teachers refine their classroom
practices with the 1:1 tablets. Application of this theory suggests that CSIS should combine
modeling, practice and performance feedback within formal and informal organizational
activities such as PLCs, faculty meetings, and teacher evaluations in order to improve teacher
self-efficacy.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), motivation is an area where tangible benefits are
available to organizations even where there is no gap between goals and performance.
Furthermore, the authors state that for motivational gaps beliefs are almost everything, and when
individuals have positive beliefs about their abilities to do something, they are more likely to
pursue the goal and increase performance. Researchers emphasized the importance of model-
based training with a particular technological device in the subject matter is necessary to develop
teachers capacity for successful implementation (Dysart & Weckerle, 2015; Harris & Hofer,
2011). However, developing a teacher's pedagogical content knowledge is also an integral
component of technology integration in education because a teacher who does not know how to
best teach a mathematical concept will not be able to integrate technology into the teaching
process at an adequate level, no matter how much technology knowledge they have (Beschorner

91
& Kruse, 2016; Kıray et al., 2018). Therefore, training should not only include successful
teaching strategies using the tablets that models exemplary mathematics pedagogy but it should
also deepen their mathematical content knowledge in order to enhance teachers' self-efficacy and
close this motivational gap.
Developing Teachers’ Expectancy Value with Tablet Integration
While all teachers interviewed expressed they valued technology during online schooling
throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, only three teachers stated they valued the device in the
traditional classroom. A recommendation centered around expectancy value theory has been
selected to close this motivation gap. In order for the tablet integration program to be successful,
teachers need to see the value of using them in their classroom and understand the benefits they
have on ELL student performance. According to Eccles (2006), when someone understands the
significance of a task, they will develop a positive utility value of the task, which enhances
learning and motivation. Furthermore, giving teachers choices on how the device can be used
will activate personal interest as opportunities for choice and control can increase motivation
(Eccles, 2006). Therefore, cultivating a supportive professional learning community that
discusses examples of expectancy value of the tablets in the classroom will enhance teachers'
motivation of integrating the tablets into daily lessons.
According to Clark and Estes (2008) expectancy value enhances engagement of workers
through connecting individuals’ values to organizational goals. In a study by Kale and Akcaoglu
(2018), findings from 111 teachers revealed that reflecting on the connections of technology in
the classroom increased their interest in technology integration regardless of their situational
interests’ levels. The authors emphasized the importance of discussing the various benefits of
technology regarding collaboration, assessment and self-paced learning. Cheng et al. (2020)
found that when teachers felt competent to integrate technology, they were more likely to expect

92
that they would succeed in using technology and feel that technology in classrooms is valuable,
useful and not time-consuming. The author also stated that teachers with higher ability beliefs
were associated with higher integration quality and used technology more often to engage
students in individual work, provide feedback, assess and monitor student learning needs and
progress, and differentiate instruction. Furthermore, Xie et al. (2017) stated that timely feedback
to encourage teachers to reflect on their implementation was also effective in developing their
ability beliefs. This evidence suggests a PLC could be used to reflect on tablet integration
practices and pedagogy in order to improve teachers' expectancy value beliefs of the tablets and
enhance motivation.
Organization Recommendations
Cultural models and cultural settings within an organization can influence the behaviors
of the individuals within the organization. This evaluation study identified four assumed
organizational influences located in Table 18 as high priority and validated two of these
influences as a gap that impacts CSIS in achieving their stakeholder goal. The first
organizational influence is the cultural model of trust relationships, which is defined as the
organization's ability to establish a culture of trust between teachers and administrators. This was
validated as an asset since all teachers in the study expressed that there was effective
communication that is frequent, candid and person centered between administrators and teachers.
Lewis (2011) stated effective leaders are aware of various types of communication, non-verbal
communication, storytelling, person centered communication, and how these communication
modalities influence change and the environment within the organization. The second
organizational influence is the cultural setting of initial training, which impacts the teachers’
ability to effectively integrate the 1:1 tablet devices into their classrooms. This was identified as
a gap since there was no initial training provided. According to researchers, the lack of initial

93
training can significantly impact the rollout of any new technology program (Alsufi, 2014;
Ertmer, 2012; Fleischer, 2012).
The third organizational influence is the cultural setting of establishing a supportive
learning environment to support teachers as they integrate the tablets into their instruction. This
was identified as a gap since six of the seven teachers expressed the strong need of additional
training and professional development in implementing the tablets. According to Bennett (2017)
when teachers do not receive enough training and support, they experience frustration when
using new technology for educational purposes. The fourth organizational influence is the
cultural setting of technical support. While there were some initial struggles with the technical
support during rollout, six of the seven teachers did express satisfaction with the current state of
technical support they were receiving, thus this was validated as an asset. Table 18 identifies the
organizational influences that impact the success of achieving the stakeholder
goal. Additionally, the table includes context specific recommendations along with supporting
citations for the recommendations.
Table 18
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization Influence*

Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Trust Relationships – The
organization needs to
establish and maintain a
culture of trust between
teachers and administration.
Effective leaders know how
to build strong
communication skills
among members of an
organization in order to
build capacity. (Fix, 2006)

Use effective communication
strategies to build and
maintain positive relationships
with employees.

Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Learning Culture - The
organization needs to provide
teachers with the initial
training to effectively

Insuring staff’s resource
needs are being met is
correlated with
an organizations
performance (Clark and
Estes, 2008)
Align the allocation of
resources to develop an initial
training program for teachers
and continually update this
training program annually to

94
integrate the 1:1 tablet devices
into their classrooms.

reflect the current teacher and
student needs.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Supportive Learning
Environment – The
organization needs to
establish an ongoing
professional learning
community to support
teachers as they integrate the
tablets into their instruction.

Effective change efforts
utilize feedback to
determine when/if
improvement is happening
(Clark and Estes, 2008).

Create a monitoring process,
with
regular check in meetings to
review data, share challenges
and success,
and make course corrections if
needed.
Cultural Setting Influence 3:
Technical Support - The
organization needs to provide
ongoing technical support.
Effective change efforts
ensure that everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc) needed
to do their job, and that if
there are resource shortages,
then
resources should be aligned
with organizational
priorities (Clark and Estes,
2008).

Establish the priorities and
resource requirements to
ensure teachers and students
have the support and
equipment needed to achieve
the organizational goal.

Developing an Initial Training Program for Tablet Integration
During the interviews, all seven teachers expressed their frustration with the lack of
initial training and attributed much of the challenges they had during initial rollout to this
shortfall. A recommendation rooted in leadership theory has been selected to close this
organizational influence gap. To ensure the success of the 1:1 tablet program, administration
needs to provide an initial training program. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that in order to
institute effective organizational change, leadership must appropriately allocate training and
resources which are aligned with the organization's goals. Furthermore, Marzano et al. (2003)
stated that ensuring staff’s resource needs are being met is correlated with increased learning
outcomes. This suggests the development of an initial training program that supports CSIS’s goal

95
of implementing the 1:1 tablet program to reduce the ELL achievement gap in mathematics is
needed.
According to de Freitas (2019), for successful technology integration to occur, teachers
must learn the specific knowledge and skills such as operating technology reliably and flexibly to
promote better teaching and learning of mathematics. The authors further state that this
knowledge is necessary to overcome challenges with hardware and software, time and
curriculum pressure, students’ behavior, attitudes, and ability. Additionally, in a study of 56 in-
service mathematics teachers, when they were tasked with integrating technology into their
classroom practice, they preferred initial training in the form of experience exchanges, practical
examples and discussions (Gellert et al., 2017). Furthermore, Bozkurt and Ruthven (2017) also
recommend the sharing of innovative examples of technology-based teaching practices in order
to build organizational technology capacity. This evidence not only suggests that initial training
is necessary for technology integration success, but it should also include the sharing of
innovative experiences in a forum such as a PLC to develop CSIS teaching capacity.
Developing a Supportive Learning Environment
Throughout all the interviews, a recurring theme was the desire to have regular
professional development and collaboration, specific to mathematics which focused on the
effective use of technology in the classroom. To address this cultural setting gap the suggested
approach based on leadership theory has been selected. In order to establish a supportive learning
environment, the administration is recommended to create a PLC which is moderated by an
experienced teacher, preferably the mathematics department head. According to Clark and Estes
(2008), effective change efforts utilize a feedback process to determine when or if improvement
is happening. Therefore, by creating a PLC, mathematics teachers will be able to discuss
successes and challenges as well as give and receive feedback related to the 1:1 tablet integration

96
program. This will not only allow teachers to improve their practice but also serve to inform
management of the program’s success and enable them to make course corrections if necessary.
Several researchers have shown that over time, professional development is critical as
teachers adapt and revise their pedagogical practices in working with technology through
feedback from their classroom experiences (Bozkurt & Ruthven, 2016; Clark-Wilson et al.,
2014; Dysart & Weckerle, 2015). Additionally, Courduff et al. (2016) stated that teachers who
engaged in regular training had high self-efficacy and could easily overcome frustrations and
move on to optimism, curiosity, risk-taking, flexibility and persistence in using technology as a
teaching and learning tool. This evidence suggests that having a forum where teachers can reflect
on their technology practice increases their self-efficacy, persistence, and optimism with using
1:1 devices in the classroom. Without a supportive learning environment to build and develop
teacher capacity with technology, Maich et al. (2017) warned teachers would have increased
frustration, inconsistent and piecemeal implementation, and have a potential disconnect between
the intended purposes of technology and actual use. At CSIS, six of the seven teachers expressed
frustrations with the implementation program and described inconsistent implementation
practices consistent with the authors assertions. This evidence demonstrates that there is a
significant need to create and sustain a supportive learning environment to close this
organizational gap.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan.
The implementation and evaluation framework that was used in this study was the New
World Kirkpatrick Model. This model assesses the behavioral changes at an organization in
order to evaluate the effectiveness of a training program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This
model has four levels in its approach to evaluate training and is executed in reverse order from
level four to level one. Level four, results, evaluates the degree to which targeted program

97
outcomes occur and contribute to the organization’s highest level result. Level three, behavior,
evaluates the degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they are
back on the job. Level two, learning, evaluates the degree to which participants acquire the
intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their participation in
the training program. Level one, reaction, evaluates the degree to which participants find the
training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These
levels and their application will be discussed in the following section.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The purpose of CSIS is to provide students with a transformative K-12 education, with
cutting-edge curriculum through exceptional teaching and faculty mentoring. The organizational
goal is that ELL students will have the same performance in mathematics on their end of year
comprehensive exams as their native English-speaking peers by May 2021. In order to achieve
this goal administration implemented a 1:1 tablet program with the stakeholder goal of having
these devices fully integrated into the daily curriculum and instruction by May of 2020. In order
to measure the progress of this program, the knowledge, motivation and organizations influences
that contribute to goal attainment will be evaluated through the lens of the New World
Kirkpatrick model.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Results and lending indicators measure the ability to achieve a desired outcome
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). CSIS will need to achieve several measurable outcomes to
ensure the success of the 1:1 integration program. These outcomes include: reducing the ELL
achievement gap in mathematics, increasing performance in academic English, increasing daily
tablet uses among mathematics teachers, improving tablet pedagogy, and increasing teacher self-
efficacy in using technology in the classroom. Observation measurements include regular

98
collecting and reporting of test scores, daily tablet device usage, teacher evaluations and teacher
surveys. Table 19 summarizes the outcomes, metrics, and methods for the results and leading
indicators for level four of the New World Kirkpatrick model. Achieving the internal and
external outcomes will indicate that the stakeholder and organisational goals are being achieved.
Table 19

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Reduced ELL
achievement gap in
mathematics

1. ELL AP test scores
2. PISA test scores
Annual AP test results
PISA test once every 3 years
Increased performance in
ELL academic English

Fastbridge English test
scores

Semi-annual Fastbridge test results
Internal Outcomes
Increase in daily tablet
uses among mathematics
teachers in their lessons

Number of days
teachers incorporated
tablets into their
lessons

Monthly review of teachers’ lessons
located on the LMS.
Improved pedagogy with
using 1:1 tablets
Evaluation developed
by the head of school.

Unannounced classroom observations
Increased teacher self-
efficacy in using
technology in the
classroom
Number of teachers
that report a high sense
of self-efficacy
Trimester survey of mathematics
teachers which addresses, self-efficacy
and perceived capacity to utilize tablets
effectively in the classroom

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
Critical behaviors are specific and observable behaviors that can be used to measure how
and to what degree someone transfers the learning received from training to their daily job
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). CSIS mathematics teachers will need to demonstrate several

99
critical behaviors in order to achieve the desired outcomes and results. These critical behaviors
include: regularly attending a PLC to improve classroom technology practices, reflecting on
technology effectiveness in their classrooms and attending formal internal and external
professional development. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), organizations that
implement and measure critical behaviors have a higher likelihood of transferring knowledge and
developing employee capacity. Table 20 summarizes the critical behaviors essential for the
achievement of the organizational goal along with the specific metrics, methods, and timing for
each of behaviors to be evaluated.
Table 20

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Teachers attend a PLC to
improve their classroom
technology practices.
Number of PLC
sessions attended

Attendance submitted to
head of school.
Monthly
2. Teachers reflect on
technology effectiveness in
their classrooms.

Number of topics
reflected on in the
PLCs.

Meeting minutes
submitted to the head of
school.
Monthly
3. Teachers demonstrate a
variety of tablet integration
methods in their lesson
plans.

Number of unique
methods used to
engage students with
the tablet device.

List of methods used in
their lesson plan.
Every
trimester
4. Teachers attend formal
internal or external
professional development.
Number of meetings
attended
List of internal and
external professional
development sessions
attended.

Every
trimester

Required Drivers
According to Kirkpatric and Kirkpatric (2016), required drivers to support critical
behaviors are necessary to ensure these behaviors are put into practice. Table 21 identifies the
drivers that support and influence the successful integration of the 1:1 tablet devices. These

100
drivers are categorised as reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring which the
administration implement to support the critical behaviors of the teachers. The drivers also utilize
multiple forms of feedback in a variety of training environments such as PLCs and internal and
external professional development. Table 21 summarizes the recommended drivers for
achievement of the 1:1 tablet integration program.
Table 21
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported 1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Head of school provides a format to be used for the
lesson plan.

Ongoing 3
Mathematics department head leads a professional
learning community for mathematics teachers to
discuss challenges and successes.

Weekly 1, 2, 4
Create job aids for structured communication, goal
evaluation, and engagement.

Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4

Head of school provides instructor-led training on
different strategies for using the tablets in the
classroom.

Monthly 4
Encouraging

Teachers meet weekly in the PLC to discuss
challenges, successes, and reflect on their practice.

Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding

Head of school highlights teachers’ successes in all
school staff meeting.

Mothly 1, 2, 3, 4
Monitoring

Head of school and mathematics department head
meet to discuss progress of 1:1 tablet integration
success.
Will review:
1. PLC Attendance
2. PLC Topics
3. Tablet methods used in instruction.
Trimester 1, 2, 3, 4

101
4. Internal/External professional development.

Organizational Support
The administration at CSIS will support the critical behaviors in Table 20 by instituting
several organizational changes. First, CSIS will establish and maintain a culture of trust between
teachers and administration. To accomplish this, administration will use effective communication
strategies to build and maintain positive relationships with the mathematics teachers. Second,
CSIS needs to provide teachers with the initial training to effectively integrate the 1:1 tablet
devices into their classrooms. In order to accomplish this, CSIS must allocate resources to
develop an initial training program for teachers and continually update this training program
annually to reflect the current teacher and student needs. Third, CSIS needs to establish an
ongoing professional learning community (PLC) to support teachers as they integrate the tablets
into their instruction. This PLC will not only serve as a monitoring process with regular check-in
meetings to review data, but also as a forum to share challenges and success as well as make
course corrections if needed. Lastly, The CSIS needs to provide ongoing tech support. This
includes: establishing the priorities and resource requirements to ensure teachers and students
have the support and equipment needed to achieve the organizational goal.
Level 2: Learning
As defined by the New World Kirkpatrick Model, Level 2 explores how the mathematics
teachers acquired the specific knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment as a result
of the learning solutions. After the recommendations are implemented, the mathematics teachers
should be able to:
1. Integrate best practices of using 1:1 tablets in their curriculum and instruction (Procedural
Knowledge).

102
2. Demonstrate effective reflective practices in their ability to use the 1:1 tablets in their
classroom (Metacognitive Knowledge).
3. Demonstrate confidence in their ability to successfully integrate the 1:1 tablets on a daily
basis in their curriculum and instruction (Self-efficacy).
4. Recognize the value of technology in their classroom and for their professional career
(Expectancy Value)
Program
In order to develop teachers’ capacity to successfully integrate 1:1 tablets devices into
their daily curriculum and instruction, a comprehensive training program will be provided. This
program will consist of initial training, a professional learning community (PLC), and external
professional development. The components of this program will work together to ensure that
technology training is properly scaffolded and addresses the teachers individual needs in order to
develop teacher’s technology self-efficacy and expectancy value.
Initial Training. The initial training program will be offered before the start of the
school year to all new teachers over a four-day period. This training will consist of two four-hour
training sessions provided by the Apple supplier that will cover the fundamentals of the iPad
tablet; training on the Apple Classroom application (a classroom management system);
connectivity to the LMS and projector; and assigning, submitting, and grading assignments
online. This will give each participant the basic knowledge of how to use the device and
applications as well as the basic workflow of the device integration. Additionally, the
mathematics department head will present a four-hour lesson on effective 1:1 tablet integration
strategies in the mathematics classroom. This training will include the modeling of several
effective tablet integration techniques followed by a question and answer period.

103
The mathematics department head will also lead the participants on developing a practice
lesson. This will allow each participant to get hands-on experience in creating a digital lesson,
delivering it, reflecting on the delivery and receiving feedback. Furthermore, this hands-on
practice will model the effective collaboration and communication strategies that will be used in
the following PLCs. Thus, these four days will allow participants to develop their technology
self-efficacy and value of the program so they feel comfortable and positive about taking risks in
using the device in their classroom.
Professional Learning Community (PLC). Once school is in session, all teachers will
participate in a weekly PLC that is moderated by the mathematics department head. During this
meeting teachers will reflect on the challenges and successes they are having in the classroom.
This will be a time where individual teachers will have the opportunity to discuss any concerns
or pedagogical issues they are currently facing. Additionally, the mathematics department head
will provide additional training on topics such as: effective integration strategies, using the
device to best support ELL students, and culturally relevant teaching practices. The PLCs will
continually work to encourage risk-taking behaviors and build teacher self-efficacy in integrating
the 1:1 tablet devices. Furthermore, the mathematics department head will collect and maintain a
list of resource requirements, training needs, and teacher concerns in order to bring this to the
administration’s attention in the monthly staff meeting. Thus, ensuring the continued success of
the integration program by keeping administration informed of any potential problem or
requirement.
Professional Development. CSIS will institute both an internal and external professional
development training program. The internal professional development will occur over a two-day
period in February and will consist of CSIS trainers and external trainers. These trainers will
present mini-workshops to address the common training themes identified by the department

104
heads. The external professional development will be offered to all teachers on a voluntary basis
and will occur over the summer holiday. Administration will provide a list of approved
workshops, AP conferences, and online courses which teachers can attend. This will allow
teachers to participate in professional development that is of intrinsic interest and addresses their
personal needs.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), in order to understand the extent of the
learning, it is important to evaluate the knowledge, skills, attitudes, confidence levels and
commitment of the individuals. These evaluation components include assessing individuals’
declarative and procedural knowledge during the initial training as well as during the ongoing
PLC sessions. Additionally, evaluation of teachers’ attitude and confidence will occur during
observations as well as with surveys that will focus on understanding their effectiveness, self-
efficacy and expectancy value. Lastly, teachers' commitment to the 1:1 tablet program will be
evaluated at the end of the initial training and throughout the year by surveys and one-on-one
meetings with the mathematics department head. This evaluation will seek to understand
teachers’ willingness and persistence in using the 1:1 tablet devices in their daily curriculum.
Table 22 contains a summary of the methods of evaluation as well as the timeframe for the
evaluation.
Table 22
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program

Method(s) or Activity(ies)

Timing

Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks during the initial training During the initial training session
Knowledge checks throughout the PLC sessions

Ongoing

105
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Procedural checks during one-on-one coaching
during initial training

During the initial training session
Procedural checks during PLC training session

Ongoing

Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Observations of teachers to evaluate their effective
1:1 tablet integration

Ongoing
Survey after PLC training session to evaluate
teachers’ expectancy value and self-efficacy

Every trimester
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Discussion with teachers during the initial training

During the initial training session
Discussion with teachers during the PLC training
session

Ongoing
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Survey after the initial training to evaluate
commitment

At the end of the initial training
One-on-one discussion with the mathematics
department head

Ongoing

Level 1: Reaction
As defined by the New World Kirkpatrick Model, Level 1 focuses on the reaction of the
mathematics teachers to the training program. In order to achieve the stakeholder goal, it is
important to measure the personal reactions of the teachers. This will determine to what extent
the mathematics teacher found the training beneficial, interesting, and valuable to advancing
their knowledge on technology integration best practices. Table 23 contains a summary of the
methods and tools used to measure the teachers reaction as well as the timing.

106
Table 23

Components to Measure Reactions to the Program

Method(s) or Tool(s)

Timing

Engagement

One-to-one meeting with mathematics department
head

At the conclusion of the initial
training

Check-ins during the weekly PLC training sessions

Weekly

Observations of mathematics teachers

Ongoing

PLC training session survey

Every Trimester

Relevance

Check-ins during monthly department meetings Monthly
PLC training session survey Monthly

Customer Satisfaction

Initial training course satisfaction survey

At the end of the initial training

Feedback from teachers during PLC training sessions

Ongoing

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation

Evaluation for the initial training program will be conducted during each training session
as well as at the completion of the four-day program. Level 1 will be evaluated during each
training session through check-ins and knowledge checks. During the check-ins, the mathematics
department head will ask the teachers about their satisfaction with the program, value of the
program, and any feedback they may have. Level 2 knowledge checks will occur throughout the
training and will evaluate the teachers’ declarative and procedural knowledge, as well as their
confidence in using technology. The mathematics department head will also observe the teachers
during the hands-on component and refocus training if any gaps in their knowledge are
discovered. After the completion of the initial training program, the mathematics department

107
head will conduct a survey of the teachers to assess their overall experience in the program. This
survey will help uncover the teachers’ procedural knowledge, satisfaction, self-efficacy and
value in regard to the training they received on the 1:1 device integration program. The survey
contains 12 Likert-scale questions as well as eight open-ended questions, which is located in
Appendix E.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
At the conclusion of the first trimester, the mathematics department head will conduct a
survey containing 13 Likert-scaled and 12 open-ended questions. Level 1 will evaluate the
teachers’ satisfaction with the PLC training sessions and the relevance of the training they
received. Level 2 will focus on the teachers’ learning by measuring the current state of their
declarative and procedural knowledge, expectancy value, self-efficacy, and commitment in
regard to the 1:1 tablet integration program. Level 3 is concerned with the teachers’ critical
behaviors in reflecting on their effectiveness with technology and their ability to apply a variety
of tablet integration methods into their lesson plans. Finally, understanding the teachers’ self-
efficacy and perceived capacity to successfully integrate the tablets will allow administration to
measure the results and leading indicators of Level 4 in the New World Kirkpatrick Model. The
frequency of trimesters was chosen to allow teachers enough time to be able to demonstrate
meaningful improvements in their knowledge of technology integration, expectancy value and
self-efficacy. The survey that will be used is located in Appendix F.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Achieving the stakeholder and organizational goal of the 1:1 tablet integration program is
largely dependent on teachers’ engagement in the initial training and PLC training sessions.
Surveys will be conducted by the mathematics department head immediately upon completion of
the initial training as well as a delayed trimester interval. The data will then be presented, in

108
aggregate, to the administration that will show the results of the reaction (Level 1), learning
(Level 2), critical behaviors (Level 3) and results (Level 4) using the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (2016). Likert-scale questions will be presented using a 2-D stacked bar graph that will
assist administration in identifying positive or negative trends from trimester to trimester. Figure
2 contains an example dashboard of some of the Level 1 and Level 2 survey items.
Figure 2
Example Dashboard of Level 1 and Level 2 Survey Items.

Answers to the open-ended questions will be analyzed by the mathematics department
head and common themes that emerge will be presented to the administration in bullet point
format. Additionally, individual responses that help identify the underlying cause of the
emergent themes and trends will also be presented. This will enable the administration to make
any course corrections if necessary. Furthermore, the responses presented to the administration
will have all identifying information as to who made the response removed in order to protect the

109
participants privacy. Therefore, conducting these regular assessments will allow for a systematic
analysis of CSIS’s training program successes and failures as well as provide critical information
for shaping the future of this program.
Summary
In response to the gaps identified in the findings of this evaluation study, the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used to develop a training program to
close these performance gaps. This development began by first identifying the Level 4 results
and leading indicators, which will allow CSIS to measure the ability of the training program to
achieve the desired outcomes of reducing the ELL achievement gap in mathematics and ensure
100% tablet integration into the daily curriculum and instruction. Next, in order to measure how
and to what degree the transfer of learning was occurring, Level 3 critical behaviors were
defined. Additionally, the required drivers that support these critical behaviors were outlined to
reinforce, encourage, reward and monitor the teachers as they put their learning to practice in the
classroom. Then, in Level 2, a learning plan was developed which includes an initial training
program and weekly PLC training sessions. The goal of this training program is to integrate the
best 1:1 tablet practices, improve teacher reflection, and develop teacher self-efficacy and
expectancy value in regard to this 1:1 integration program. Finally, the Level 1 measurements of
the reactions of the teachers to the training were developed. This data will allow administration
to understand the extent the mathematics teachers found the training engaging and beneficial to
their technology pedagogy. Additionally, Level 1 data will give the administration the flexibility
to make necessary adjustments to the training and shape the future of this program. Therefore,
implementing this training program at CSIS will provide a framework to institute and sustain
transformational change in closing the achievement gap of ELL students.

110
Implications for Practice
In this evaluation study, four significant themes emerged from the findings which have
implications for practice when implementing a new technology program. The first implication is
that an organization must thoughtfully develop an initial training program that will introduce the
technology to their staff. The second implication is that an organization must develop a
supportive learning environment that assists in developing their staffs’ capacity with the
technology. The third implication is that teachers must develop a more reflective practice in
regard to how they integrate technology in their classroom. The fourth implication is that having
a technology capacity gives an organization additional flexibility to meet the demands of their
customers—especially during disruptive events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. These
implications of practice not only impact the field of education, but also impact business, trade
professions, the military and any profession instituting a new technology program at their
organization.
The first implication is for an organization to thoughtfully develop an initial training
program before expecting their stakeholders to use a new technology. It was evident in this
evaluation that the lack of initial training negatively impacted the initial rollout of the program.
In Finding 1, even though the participants valued technology in general and realized it has
potential benefits to their practice, only one participant found it essential to their job. Without a
proper initial training program at CSIS, only two of the seven teachers were able to fully
integrate the device into their classroom. Additionally, in Finding 2 and 6 all the participants
attributed their challenges and frustrations with the device to the lack of training. This led to
teachers’ expressing low self-efficacy in regard to technology and reduced the device to a
supportive function that would quickly be abandoned if not working the way that they had
hoped. Desimone and Pak (2016) found that when learning to implement new instructional

111
strategies, mentorship and instructional coaching to be an effective way to begin developing new
skills. Thus, an initial training program is necessary in developing a learning culture, which
supports the development of one’s capacity to best utilize technology in their classroom—
providing a pathway to further increase self-efficacy and expectancy value in technology usage.
The second implication is for an organization to develop a supportive learning
environment through collaboration during regular meetings such as a professional learning
community (PLC). At CSIS, Finding 8 found that such a supportive learning environment does
not presently exist outside an online collaboration space on the LMS which is minimally used.
All participants expressed a need to collaborate from weekly to monthly in-person meetings;
however, some qualified this statement with the need to be given the time to do so. Additionally,
researchers stated that continual professional development through mentorship and feedback is
necessary for teachers to develop the capacity and confidence to meaningfully integrate
technology into their teaching practices (Dysart and Weckerle, 2015). Therefore, developing a
supportive learning environment will encourage teachers to take risks, persist even when they
experience failure, and improve their reflective practice—providing teachers with the capacity to
integrate the 1:1 device into their pedagogical approaches within their specific content of focus.
The third implication is the necessity for teachers to develop a more reflective practice.
Finding 3 uncovered evidence of only four of the seven teachers practicing some form of
reflection in their technology usage. However, a well-defined and regular reflective process did
not exist for most of the teachers. Kernan (2018) suggested that reflection and collaboration
increase the effectiveness of technology implementation. Therefore, developing teachers’
metacognitive knowledge should be central to both the initial training and the PLCs.
The fourth implication is that developing a technology capacity gives an organization
additional flexibility to meet customer demands during disruptive events such as the COVID-19

112
pandemic. According to Dyer (2011), an organization can miss disruptive opportunities if it fails
to innovate a bit more in how it presently operates. While several gaps were identified in the
CSIS implementation, having the ability to deliver online lessons content on the tablet devices
was a disruptive opportunity CSIS was able to seize. According to CSIS administration, during
the COVID-19 pandemic several schools in Southern China were forced to return tuition
payments during the government mandated closure. However, CSIS was not only able to remain
operational, but they were also able to raise tuition rates an additional 3%—all while maintaining
a substantial waiting list of students. The COVID-19 pandemic was a remarkably disruptive
event for all schools and organizations; thus, having the technology capacity to flexibly meet
these challenges proved vital to CSIS’s success.
Future Research
In completing this evaluation study on the integration of 1:1 devices in the mathematics
classroom, there are five recommendations the researcher has for future research.
1. First, continuing this research study to measure the long-term impacts of this 1:1
tablet integration program. Since this study was limited to a four-month period, it
was not able to measure the impact on the ELL achievement gap. Therefore,
examining the ELL performance over several years would provide valuable insight
for of how the tablets are supporting ELL students.
2. Second, conducting research on supporting ELL students with 1:1 tablet technology
in the subject of mathematics. While significant research exists on supporting ELL
students in general, research on supporting ELL students in mathematics with tablet
devices is limited. Thus, evaluating the technology infused strategies teachers are
using in their classrooms, and determining how they support or hinder ELL students
would be beneficial.

113
3. Third, repeating this study at other schools, with students from different cultural or
socioeconomic backgrounds. Such study would provide insight on how the variables
of culture and socioeconomic status impact the introduction of 1:1 technology with
different demographics. This study was limited to Chinese ELL students, and the
finding from this study cannot necessary be generalized to other cultures.
4. Fourth, explore the effectiveness of 1:1 technology integration in other subjects such
as biology, physics, or language arts. While mathematics has its own subject specific
tools and visualizations, other subjects may use the device in new and unique ways.
Understanding how other subject teachers put the device to work in their classroom
may provide inspiration for innovation in the mathematics classroom with how to use
the 1:1 tablet device in new and creative ways.
5. Fifth, examine the impact of 1:1 technology integration on student collaboration.
Further research on the implications of using tablets to collaborate would provide
additional evidence on how these devices help or hinder ELL students acquisition of
academic English.
Conclusions
As the world moves into the 21
st
century, schools are embracing technology at an ever-
increasing rate as a means to improve student achievement. Although technology has the ability
to increase access to the curriculum, its ability to positively influence student achievement is a
much more complex process. The purpose of this study was to evaluate teachers’ knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences related to successfully integrating a 1:1 technology
program in the mathematics department. The design of this evaluation study utilized a qualitative
approach which analyzed data from seven mathematics teacher interviews, classroom
observations and documents analysis.

114
This 1:1 technology program is intended to improve access to the curriculum for ELL
students and help CSIS achieve its organizational goal of reducing the ELL achievement gap in
mathematics. For this study, the teacher stakeholder group was chosen as the focus since they
began the implementation process in March 2020. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap
Analysis Framework, this evaluation identified gaps in training, teacher reflection, teacher self-
efficacy and expectancy value, as well as gaps in the organizations learning culture and
supportive learning environment. In order to address these issues, the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) was used to develop a comprehensive training and
evaluation program as a way forward to achieving the stakeholder and organizational goal. This
training and evaluation program includes several measurement tools as a means to quantify
progress of the training at regular intervals and inform the administration if any course
corrections are required. Instituting this program will work towards reducing the gaps identified
in this study and improve the learning culture and supportive learning environment at CSIS. As
CSIS improves the organizational learning culture and supports teachers in developing their
classroom technology capacity, its goal of reducing the ELL achievement gap will be attainable.

115
References
Abedi, J., Bailey, A., Butler, F., Castellon-Wellington, M., Leon, S., & Mirocha, J. (2005). The
validity of administering large-scale content assessments to English language learners:
An investigation from three perspectives. (CSE Report 663). National Center for
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Ackermans, K., Rusman, E., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Specht, M. (2019). Solving instructional
design dilemmas to develop a Video Enhanced Rubric with modeling examples to
support mental model development of complex skills: the Viewbrics-project use
case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 983–1002.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09668-1
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625–642.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x
Alsufi, D. (2014). Evolution of classroom technology, the new way of teaching, using iPads in
schools. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1011
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52(1),
154-168. http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006
Arguinis, H. & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–74.
Baker, L., & Cerro, L. (2000). Assessing metacognition in children and adults. In G. Schraw & J.
Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 99–145). Lincoln: Buros
Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska.

116
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(1), 75–78. http://10.1111/1467-8721.00064.
Bass, E. G. (2008). Teachers' perceptions of ELL education: Potential solutions to overcome the
greatest challenges. Multicultural Education, 15(3), 39-43.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/216524347?accountid=14749
Bennett, J. (2017). Determining the effectiveness of a note-taking intervention in a 1-to-1 iPad
mathematics classroom. https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1906281569?accountid=14749.
Berbary, D., & Malinchak, A. (2011). Connected and engaged: the value of government
learning. The Public Manager (Potomac, Md.), 40(3), 55–59.
Beschorner, B., & Kruse, J. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ use of a technology integration
planning cycle: A case study. International Journal of Education in Mathematics,
Science and Technology, 4(4), 258-271. https://10.18404/ijemst.73952
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.).
Bradley, S. C. (2018). A qualitative case study on the efficacy of Chinese international student
preparation programs (Order No. 10840746). https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2088133059?accountid=14749
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Bozkurt, G., & Ruthven, K. (2017). Classroom-based professional expertise: a mathematics
teacher’s practice with technology. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(3), 309–328.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9732-5

117
Carnoy, M., & Garcia, E. (2017). Five Key Trends in U.S. Student Performance. Economic
Policy Institute.
Carole, V. B., & Klemick, E. (2007). Tracking U.S. trends. Education Week, 26(30), 42-44.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/202749364?accountid=14749
Cavanagh, M., & McMaster, H. (2015). A professional experience learning community for
secondary mathematics: developing pre-service teachers’ reflective practice. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 27(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0145-z
Chai, C.S., Koh, J.H.L., and Tsai, C.C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of
technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). Educational Technology
& Society, 13(4), 63-73.
Chai, C.S., Deng, F., Tsai, P., Koh, J.H.L., and Tsai, C.C. (2015). Assessing multidimensional
students' perceptions of twenty-first-century learning practices. Asia Pacific Education
Review, 16(3), 389-398.
Cheng, S., Lu, L., Xie, K., & Vongkulluksn, V. (2020). Understanding teacher technology
integration from expectancy-value perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 91,
103062–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103062
Chu, Y. & Walters, L. M. (2013).The question-asking behavior of Asian students in an American
university classroom. Journal of English as an International Language, 8(2), 10-29.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(3) (2002), 947-967
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. CEP Press.

118
Clark-Wilson, A., Robutti, O., & Sinclair, N. (n.d.). The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era
An International Perspective on Technology Focused Professional Development (1st ed.
2014.). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4638-1
Coleman, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2012). The common core challenge for ELLs. Principal
Leadership, 12(6), 46-51.
Costa, A., & Kallick, B. (2010). It takes some getting used to: Rethinking curriculum for the 21st
century. In H. Hayes Jacobs, Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world
(pp. 210-226). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Courduff, D., Szapkiw, A., & Wendt, J., L. (2016). Grounded in what works: Exemplary practice
in special education teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Special Education
Technology, 31(1), 26-38.
Crawford, L. (2013). Effects of an online mathematics curriculum for English language learners.
Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 248–270.
Crescenzi, L., (2016). Grounded in what works: Exemplary practice in special education
teachers’ technology integration. Journal of Special Education Technology, 31(1), 26-38.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
de Freitas, G., & Spangenberg, E. (2019). Mathematics teachers’ levels of technological
pedagogical content knowledge and information and communication technology
integration barriers. Pythagoras (Pretoria, South Africa), 40(1), e1–e13.
https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v40i1.431
De Jong, E.J., Harper, C.A., (2013). Enhanced knowledge and skills for mainstream teachers of
English Language Learners. Theory Into Practice, 52(1), 89-97.

119
Denning, S. (2016). How to make the whole organization “Agile.” Strategy & Leadership, 44(4),
10–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-06-2016-0043
Durden, T. R., Escalante, E., & Blitch, K. (2014). Start with us! Culturally relevant
pedagogy in the classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(1), 223–232.
https://10.1007/s10643-014-0651-8
Desimone, L., & Pak, K. (2016). Instructional Coaching as High-Quality Professional
Development. Theory into Practice, 56(1), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241947
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. (2011). The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five
Skills of Disruptive Innovators (1st ed.). Harvard Business Review Press.
Dysart, S., & Weckerle, C. (2015). Professional Development in Higher Education: A Model for
Meaningful Technology Integration. Journal of Information Technology Education.
Innovations in Practice, 14, 255–265. https://doi.org/10.28945/2326
Eagan-Murray, J. (2019). California middle school teachers’ perspectives of technology
implementation for english language learners’ motivation and achievement (Order No.
13426904). https://search-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/
docview/2292082155?accountid=14749
Eccles (Parsons), J. et al. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. Spence
(Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motivation (pp.75-146). W.H.
Freeman and Co.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. http://www.
education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Ertmer, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship.
Computers & Education, 59(1), 423- 435.

120
Falloon, G. (2015). What’s the difference? Learning collaboratively using iPads in
conventional classrooms. Computers and Education, 84(1), 62-77.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). SAGE.
Fleischer, H. (2017). What is our current understanding of one-to-one computer projects: A
systematic narrative research review. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 107–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.004
Fraise, N. J., & Brooks, J. S. (2015). Toward a theory of culturally relevant leadership for
school-community culture. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 5–
21. https://10.18251/ijme.v17l1.983
Fitzgerald, J., & Graves, M. (December, 2004). Reading supports for all. Educational
Leadership, 62(4), 68-71.
Fuentes, R. (2015). Technology Integration and Innovation in Teaching and Learning: A Case
Study. ProQuest Publishing.
Gadanidis, G., & Geiger, V. (2010). A social perspective on technology enhanced mathematical
learning—from collaboration to performance. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics, 42(1), 91–104.
Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational Research. Allyn and Bacon.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing Cultural Models and Settings to Connect
Minority Achievement and School Improvement Research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3601_5
Garvin, D., Edmondson, A., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? 86(3), 109–
118.
Ge, C. (2015, Sep 08). China's booming international school business untouched by slowdown:
Rising wealth and a growing obsession with brand-name universities are fueling

121
demand. South China Morning Post. https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1710075267?accountid=14749
Gellert, U., Hitt, F., Bazzini, L., & Aldon, G. (2017). Mathematics and Technology: A
C.I.E.A.E.M. Sourcebook. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-51380-5
Geer, R., & Barnes, A. (2007). Beyond media stickiness and cognitive imprinting: Rethinking
creativity in cooperative work & learning with ICTs. Education and Information
Technologies, 12(3), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-007-9036-6
Gewertz, C. (2013). Standards worrying teachers. Education Week, 32(22), 1-2.
Gist, C. D. (2014).CA culturally responsive counter-narrative of effective teaching.
Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 1009–1014. https://10.1007/s11422-013-9537-0
Gonzalez, M. (2016). Understanding the Technological, Pedagogical, and Mathematical Issues
that Emerge as Secondary Mathematics Teachers Design Lessons that Integrate
Technology. ProQuest Publishing.
Grant, P., & Basye, D. (2014). Personalized learning: A guide for engaging students with
technology (pp. 1-51). International Society for Technology in Education.
Greene, G. (2014). Transition of culturally and linguistically diverse youth with disabilities:
Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 40(2), 239–245.
https://10. 3233/JVR-140689
Groff, J. & Mouza, C. (2008). A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology
use. AACE Journal, 16(1), 21-46.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development, 15(1), 103–120.

122
Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in
action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers' curriculum-based, technology-related
instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 211-229.
Harvil, H. R. (2018). Teacher perceptions on the use of technology with English language
learners (Order No. 10814762). https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2056608597?accountid=14749
Hähkiöniemi, M. (2013). Teacher’s reflections on experimenting with technology-enriched
inquiry-based mathematics teaching with a preplanned teaching unit. Journal of
Mathematical Behavior, 32(3), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2013.03.007.
Hechter, R. Vernett (2013). Technology integration in K-12 science classrooms: An analysis of
barriers and implications. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 73—90.
Hineman, J., Boury, T., & Semich, G. (2015). Technology-Literate School Leaders in a 1:1 iPad
Program and Teachers’ Technology Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Information
and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 11(2), 68–79.
https://doi.org/10.4018/ijicte.2015040106
Hesser, T. L., & Schwartz, P. M. (2013). iPads in the science laboratory: Experience in designing
and implementing a paperless chemistry laboratory course. Journal of STEM Education,
14(2), 5-9. http://jstem.org/index.php?journal=JSTEM&page=
article&op=viewFile&path%5B%5D= 1827&path%5B%5D=1519.
Holden, H., Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology
self-Efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 43(4), 343-367.

123
Howell, M. (2016). Classroom technology trends are on the upswing. (2016, Aug 24). Livingston
County Daily Press & Argus. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https: //search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2191414053?accountid=14749
Hu, C. (2017). What effect does flipping the classroom have on undergraduate student
perceptions and grades? Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2741–2765.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9568-8
Hyunju Lee, Allan Feldman, & Ian D. Beatty. (2012). Factors that Affect Science and
Mathematics Teachers’ Initial Implementation of Technology-Enhanced Formative
Assessment Using a Classroom Response System. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 21(5), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9344-x
Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2010). Laptops in the K-12 classrooms: Exploring factors impacting
instructional use. Computers & Education, 55(3), 937–944.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04.004
Islam, M., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1:1 computing in
schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 191–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-
016-9271-y
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). SAGE.
Joven, J. E. (2018). The impact of formal technology and mathematics software on the
motivation and math achievement of ELL/Bilingual high school students. https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2101886185?accountid=14749
Kaasila, R., Hannula, M., Laine, A., & Pehkonen, E. (2008). Socio-emotional orientations
and teacher change. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 111–123.
Kale, U., & Akcaoglu, M. (2018). The role of relevance in future teachers’ utility value and

124
interest toward technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(2),
283–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9547-9
Kastberg, S., & Leatham, K. (2005). Research on graphing calculators at the secondary level:
Implications for mathematics teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and
Teacher Education, 5(1), 25–37.
Kay, Benzimra, & Li (2017). Exploring factors that influence tech-based distractions in bring
your own device classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(7) 974-
995.
Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-
based teaching and learning. Education Technology. 39(5), 20.
Kernan, A. (2018). Technological Pedagogical Skills Among K-12 Teachers. ProQuest
Publishing.
Kıray, S., Çelik, İ., & Çolakoğlu, M. (2018). TPACK Self-Efficacy Perceptions of Science
Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling Study. Egitim Ve Bilim, 43(195).
https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2018.7538.
Kieran, C., Guzman, (2013). Becoming Aware Of Mathematical Gaps In New Curricular
Materials: A Resource-Based Analysis Of Teaching Practice. The Mathematics
Enthusiast, 10(1/2), 163–181.
Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Kereluik K., Shin, T.S., & Graham C.R. (2014). The technological
pedagogical content knowledge framework. In: Spector J., Merrill M., Elen J., Bishop M.
(eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Koh, J. H., Ling, Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. (2013). Examining practicing teachers' perceptions of

125
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural equation
modeling approach. Instructional Science, 41(4), 793-809.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y
Kopcha, T. (2012). Teachers' perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices
with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education,
59(4), 1109-1121.
Korsgaard, M., Brodt, S., & Whitener, E. (2002). Trust in the Face of Conflict: The Role of
Managerial Trustworthy Behavior and Organizational Context. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(2), 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.312
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. https://10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lewis, M. B. C. (2018). Effects of a one-to-one initiative on achievement and language
acquisitions of English language learners (Order No. 10838781). https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2103926507?accountid=14749
Lewis, S. (2011). Positive psychology at work how positive leadership and appreciative inquiry
create inspiring organizations . Wiley-Blackwell.
Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying
the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 52(1), 98–109.
https://10.1080/00405841.2013770327
Maich, K., Hall, C., van Rhijn, T., & Henning, M. (2017). Teaching and learning in two iPad-
infused classrooms: A descriptive case study of a dual classroom, school-based pilot
project. Proquest Publishing.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2003). School Leadership That Works: From Research
to Results. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

126
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).
SAGE.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moloney-Egnatios, L., Mielke, G., Trinh, J., & Young, M. (2014). The international student
journey in the United States and the Netherlands: A comparative analysis. American
University School of International Service Cultural Diplomacy and International
Exchange Practicum.
Moschkovich, J. (2007). Examining mathematical discourse practices. For the learning of
mathematics, 27(1), 24-30.
National Council of Teacher of Mathematics. (August, 2019). Strategic use of technology in
teaching and learning mathematics. https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-
Positions/Position-Statements/Strategic-Use-of-Technology-in-Teaching-and-Learning-
Mathematics/
National Center for Educational Statistics, (May, 2019). English language learners in public
schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgf.asp
National Education Association. (2018). Identifying factors that contribute to achievement gaps,
http://www.nea.org/home/17413.htm. Accessed 1 Sep. 2018.
Nelson, J., Christopher, A., & Mims, C. (2009). TPACK and web 2.0: Transformation of
teaching and learning. Tech Trends, 53(5), 80–85.

127
Niess, M. (2011). Investigating TPACK: Knowledge Growth in Teaching with
Technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299–317.
https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.44.3.c
Nieto, S. (2017). Becoming Sociocultural Mediators: What All Educators Can Learn from
Bilingual and ESL Teachers. Issues in Teacher Education, 26(2), 129-132.
OECD (2016). Low-Performing Students: Why they fall behind and how to help them succeed,
PISA, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264250246-en Accessed 1 Sep.
2018.
Ofsted - report on mathematics. (2012, May 22). Targeted News Service. https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1015248742?accountid=14749
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/ .
Paraskeva, F., Bouta, H., Papagianni, Aik., (2008). Individual characteristics and computer
self-efficacy in secondary education teachers to integrate technology in educational
practice. Journal of Computers & Education, 50(1), 1084-1091.
Pierce, R., & Stacey, K. (2010). Mapping pedagogical opportunities provided by mathematics
analysis software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1),
1–20.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667

128
Pintrich, P. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-Regulated
Learning in College Students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0006-x
Rath, T., Fleming, J. & Conchie, B. (2008). Your Organizations Survival Plan; When the going
gets tough, high-performing companies make sure they double down their investments in
people. Gallup Management Journal.
Reiser, R.A. (2001) A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of
instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development 49(1), 53-64.
Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(2), 230-253.
Ragan, Jennings, Massey, & Doolittle. (2014). Unregulated use of laptops over time in large
lecture classes. Computers & Education, 78(C), 78-86.
Roblero, B. (2013). The importance of preparing teachers to educate vulnerable
populations. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 25, 97-105.
Rosen, M. Carrier, & Cheever. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced
task-switching while studying., Computers in Human Behavior. 75(1), 23-25
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers
College Press.
Ruggiero, D., & Mong, C. J. (2015). The teacher technology integration experience: Practice
and reflection in the classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research,
14(1), 161-178. http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol14/JITEv14ResearchP161-
178Ruggiero0958.pdf.

129
Runnalls, C. (2018). The secondary mathematics experiences of English language
learners (Order No. 10750218). https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/2076440010?accountid=14749
Schein, E., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (Fifth edition.). Wiley.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning: A
research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139-159.
Scott, A. N., Hauerwas, L. B., & Brown, R. D. (2014). State policy and guidance for
identifying learning disabilities in culturally and linguistically diverse students. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 37(1), 172–185. https://10.1177/0731948713507261
Senge, P. (1990). The leader’s new work: building learning organizations. Sloan Management
Review, 32(1), 7–19.
Stewart, A., Chappell, K., & White, G. (2016). Case study for improving ELL achievement with
common core standards through teacher professional development. ProQuest Publishing.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1809101039/
Stoilescu, D., (2015). A Critical Examination of the Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Framework: Secondary School Mathematics Teachers Integrating
Technology. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(4), 514-547.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). School composition and the black-white achievement
gap: National Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Educational
Statistics.
Wallace, D. J., & Witus, A. E. (2013). Integrating iPad technology in earth science K-12
outreach courses: Field and classroom applications. Journal of Geoscience Education,
61(4), 385-395. http://nagt-jge.org/doi/pdf/10.5408/12- 318.1

130
Wright, K. (2015). Teaching for inclusion: The effects of a professional development course for
secondary general and special education mathematics teachers for increasing teacher
knowledge and self-efficacy in geometry. ProQuest Publishing.
Wolf, M. K., Kao, J. C., Rivera, N. M., & Chang, S. M. (2012). Accommodation practices for
English language learners in states’ mathematics assessments. Teachers College Record,
114, 1-26.
Wong-Fillmore. (2014). English Language Learners at the Crossroads of Educational
Reform. TESOL Quarterly, 48(3), 624–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.174
Woolway, J., Msimanga, A., & Lelliott, A. (2019). Continuous Collaborative Reflection Sessions
in a Professional Learning Community: The Development of Grade 8 Natural Sciences
Teachers’ Reflective Practice. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 23(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2018.1555985
Xie, K., Kim, M., K., Cheng, S.-L., & Luthy, N., C. (2017). Teacher professional development
through digital content evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development,
65(4), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9519-0.
Yucesan-Durgunoglu, A. & Hughes, T. (2010) How prepared are the US preservice teachers to
teach English language learners? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 22(1), 32-41.
Zucker, A., & Light, D. (2009). Laptop programs for students. Science, 323(5910). 82-85.
https://10.1126/science.1167705.

131
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
I would like to begin this interview by saying it has been a pleasure collaborating with
you over this past year and I really appreciate you agreeing to be interviewed. In this interview I
am hoping to find out how you feel about technology in the classroom and how you use it for
instruction. Now before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of what to expect
today and answer any questions you might have about participating. In this interview we will be
having a conversation about the 16 questions I provided you last week about your feelings and
implementation of the 1:1 tablet program. What I would like to capture is a holistic view of what
you and the other mathematics teachers have experienced so far with this 1:1 tablet program. I
am especially interested in discussing the successes and challenges you would like to share about
this new program at our school. This study is part of my dissertation work at USC.
I want to assure you that everything that we discuss here today is strictly confidential and
individual responses to these questions will not be shared with anyone, including the
administration. The data collected here today will be presented in aggregate form, and if quotes
are used, I will indicate that it is from a “Study Participant.” No names will ever be associated
with any of the findings or shared with the other teachers or administration. Do you have any
questions for me?
The last couple of things I would like to cover include the format of the interview
process. I will be recording the meeting in the Zoom app as well as a screen capture program for
a backup recording. The recordings will help me focus on our conversation and not on taking
notes. If at any time you would like me to turn them off, you may request so at any time to make
comments off the record. Additionally, your participation in this interview is completely
voluntary and you may stop the interview at any time. I have sent you an information sheet in

132
your e-mail in case you have any questions for the Internal Review Board (IRB). Furthermore, if
you have any questions about your rights while taking part in this study, or concerns or
suggestions and you want to talk to someone other than me about this study, please contact the
USC Internal Review Board at 1-323-442-0114. You can reference IRB# UP-20-00257. May I
have your permission to begin recording and begin the interview?
Begin the recording, say the date and time, and teacher name.
We will start the interview by discussing your thoughts and feelings of technology in the
classroom.
1. What are your general thoughts about the role of technology in education?
2. In what ways do you think technology helps or hinders mathematics instruction?
3. Tell me how you feel about your ability to use tablets to teach mathematics. How do you rank your
overall ability, low, medium or high?
Now I would like to explore your classroom practices with integrating the 1:1 tablet devices.
4. How would you describe the integration of the 1:1 tablets in your lessons? Do you feel it is
effective?
On a scale of one to five, how would you rank your effectiveness with five being very effective,
three being average, and one very ineffective?
5. How has the sudden transition to online schooling due to COVID-19 affected this integration?
6. How many times a week are you and students using the tablets in class?
7. How are students using instructional technology in the classroom?
Could you give me some examples?
What applications are they using? How often do they use them?
8. Walk me through how you plan a typical lesson plan using the tablets.

133
9. What challenges have you faced in integrating these tablets amid the COVID-19 outbreak during the
remote schooling period?
Could you give me some examples?
What was your biggest obstacle and how did you overcome it?
10. What kinds of training and/or support helped you integrate the devices into your remote lessons?
Could you give me an example?
What was most helpful and why?
11. What kinds of additional training and support would you have liked to receive?
Next I would like to ask you about the school culture and support with technology.
12. How would you describe the technology culture at school?
In what ways do you feel the culture is supportive? Can you give me any examples?
13. Tell me how you feel about trying new technology strategies.
Could you give me an example?
14. Do you have someone on your team that you can go to for support in this area?
Could you give me an example of a time you collaborated with someone?
How has IT supported you?

15. What impact, if any, has school leadership had on your use of technology, if any?
Could you give me an example?
How would you describe your relationship with the Administration?

16. What kinds of professional experiences have supported your integration of technology?
17. How, if at all, has the school culture towards technology changed since remote schooling began?
What are you doing now that you were not doing before?
Now before we finish this interview, I would like to conclude with two final questions.
18. What advice would you give to teachers as they begin to integrate technology into their classroom?

134
19. Is there anything else you would you like to share?
Closing and Follow-up
I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts about technology with me today. I
really appreciate you taking the time to meet with me and being candid in your responses.
Everything that you have shared is really helpful in my evaluation of this 1:1 tablet program. If I
have any more follow-up questions would you mind if I contact you again? Thanks again for
participating in this study.

135
APPENDIX B: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
Teacher: _______________________________ Date: _______________________
Grade/Subject: __________________________ Time: _______________________
Classroom Environment
Number of students/Demographics
How is the lesson being delivered (MS
Teams, Zoom, Skype, in-person)

Location of Technology

Additional Notes:

Technology Usage
Do all students have an iPad?
Technology used in lesson and who used it
(smartboard, iPads, PowerPoints, etc.)

ELL support via technology and frequency
(visuals, translations, electronic dictionary)

136

Additional Notes:

Lesson Information
Learning objective
Language objective

How is technology being used to accomplish
learning objective?
- Engagement
- Differentiation
- ELL Support
- Assessment

137
Are the strategies and tools stated in the
interview being demonstrated?

Student and teacher behaviors

Additional notes:

138
APPENDIX C: DOCUMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL
RQ1: What is the math teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to implementing the 1:1
tablet program?

RQ2: How does school culture and context either support or hinder teachers’ capacity to use 1:1
tablets in the classroom?

Data needs: Potential document review source
What do teachers know about classroom
technology?
Classroom artifacts
Lesson plans
Resumes
Lesson rubrics
How are teachers using technology in the
classroom?
Mathematics department policy
Classroom artifacts
Lesson plans
Lesson rubrics

RQ2: How does school culture and context either support or hinder teachers’ capacity to use 1:1
tablets in the classroom?

Data needs: Potential document review source
How does the school support or hinder
technology usage?
School technology policy
Professional development plan
Training records
School budget
IT support plan
Teacher evaluations

139
APPENDIX D: CLASSROOM TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION RUBRIC
Teacher: _______________________________ Date: _______________________
Grade/Subject: __________________________ Time: _______________________
Category Description
No technology No technology was used during the lesson
Minimally integrated Technology used with no distinguishable academic support or added
value. Differentiation may or may not be evident. However, the
lesson could be accomplished without the device.
Partially integrated Technology used in a mostly student-centered approach with
dynamic visualizations, models, simulations with some
differentiation for multiple levels evident.
Fully integrated Technology used in a student-centered approach with dynamic
visualizations, models, simulations which is differentiated for
multiple levels and clearly enhances the classroom experience.
Additionally, the technology allows students to learn in ways that
would not otherwise be possible without the technology.

140
APPENDIX E: EVALUATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER INITIAL TRAININGE
Level 1 – Engagement

1. I was engaged during the four-day initial training.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

2. I enjoyed participating in the hands-on training?

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

3. I participated actively in the feedback sessions?

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

Level 1 – Relevance

4. The content covered in the training met my needs for technology integration in my classroom.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

5. I understand how to use 1:1 technology in my classroom.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

6. I am able to apply what I learned in my classroom.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

Level 1 – Customer Satisfaction

7. I am satisfied with the initial training program I received.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

141
Level 2 – Declarative Knowledge

8. I know how to use the functions and features of the tablet and LMS.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

9. Is there anything you would like to know more about?

10. What functions and features did you find the most useful?

Level 2 – Procedural Skills

11. I am confident in my procedural knowledge of how to use the device in my daily instruction.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

12. Is there anything you would like to know more about?

13. Briefly describe how you will use the device in your classroom.

Level 2 – Attitude

14. I believe integrating this device is worthwhile.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

15. What do you like or dislike about this technology integration program.

Level 2 – Confidence

16. I feel I will be successful with integrating the device into my classroom.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

142
17. Are there any potential barriers to integrating the device in your classroom?

Level 2 – Commitment

18. I am looking forward to using the device in my classroom.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

19. Is there anything you are not looking forward to?

Additional Comments:

20. Is there anything you would like to let the administration know about in regard to the initial
training. (Ways they could make the training better, needs that are not currently being met)?

143
APPENDIX F: TRIMESTER EVALUATION OF TRAINING
Level 1 – Engagement

1. I find the PLC training sessions engaging.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

2. I enjoyed participating in the PLCs?

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

3. I participated actively in the feedback sessions?

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

Level 1 – Relevance

4. The content discussed in the PLCs meets my needs for technology integration in my
classroom.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

5. I am able to apply what I learned in the PLC in my classroom.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

6. Is there anything else that would increase the relevance of the PLC to your instruction.

Level 1 – Customer Satisfaction

7. I am satisfied with the PLCs.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

8. Is there anything that could be done to increase your satisfaction with the PLC?

144
Level 2 – Declarative Knowledge

9. I know how to use the functions and features of the tablet and LMS.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

10. Is there anything you would like to know more about?

11. What functions and features did you find the most useful?

Level 2 – Procedural Skills

12. I am confident in my procedural knowledge of how to use the device in my daily instruction.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

13. Is there anything you would like to know more about?

14. Briefly describe how you use the device in your classroom.

Level 2 – Attitude

15. Integrating this device in my classroom is worthwhile.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

16. What do you like or dislike about this technology integration program.

Level 2 – Confidence

17. I feel confident integrating technology into my daily instruction.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

145

18. My confidence has improved since participating in the PLCs.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

19. My reflective practices have improved since participating in the PLCs.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

20. Are there any potential barriers to integrating the device in your classroom?

Level 2 – Commitment

21. I enjoy using the device in my classroom.

Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree

22. Is there anything you do not enjoy about the integration program?

Additional Comments:

23. Please describe three ways you integrate the 1:1 tablets into you lessons.

24. What additional training beyond the PLCs have you received?

25. Is there anything you would like to let the mathematics department head know about in
regard to the PLCs. (Ways they could make the training better, needs that are not currently being
met)?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study

PDF

Principals’ impact on the effective enactment of instructional coaching that promotes equity: an evaluation study

PDF

Impact of mindfulness on early education teacher well-being: an evaluation study

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

A customer relationship management approach to improving certificate completion

PDF

Supporting emergent bilinguals: implementation of SIOP and professional development practices

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Good governance: the role and impact of school boards in setting student outcome goals

PDF

Increase parental involvement to decrease the achievement gaps for ELL and low SES students in urban California public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Creating a safety culture to decrease vehicle accidents with Sales Service Representatives

PDF

Preventing excessive force incidents by improving police training: an evaluation study of a use-of-force training program

PDF

The Army’s process to evaluate costs versus benefits: a case study on the change of command ceremonies

PDF

Implementing culturally responsive therapy to serve Latino male clients in mental health

PDF

Violence experienced by registered nurses working in hospitals: an evaluation study

PDF

Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

PDF

The impact of advanced technologies on the workplace and the workforce: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Pulliam, Robert Charles (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 09/18/2020

Defense Date 08/24/2020

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

Tag achievement gap,China,English language learner,Integration,international school,iPad,mathematics,OAI-PMH Harvest,one to one,tablet

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member), Sparangis, Themistocles (committee member)

Creator Email Myinvestingaccount@gmail.com,Robertpu@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-374803

Unique identifier UC11666353

Identifier etd-PulliamRob-8978.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-374803 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PulliamRob-8978.pdf

Dmrecord 374803

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Pulliam, Robert Charles

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