dissertation reviews
theedukator2020
2.pdf
A DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY: ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY
ACCEPTANCE AND CLASSROOM INTEGRATION
by
Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt
Liberty University
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Liberty University
2017
2
A DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY: ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY
ACCEPTANCE AND CLASSROOM INTEGRATION
by Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
2017
APPROVED BY:
Jennifer Courduff, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Amanda Rockinson-Szapkiw, Ed.D, Committee Member
Jillian Wendt, Ed.D, Committee Member
3
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this descriptive case study was to examine elementary teachers’ technology
acceptance in the context of a student-supported professional development model in an
elementary school located in the southern part of the United States. In this study, technology
was defined as Internet, iPad™, or laptop use in a classroom environment as an instructional and
learning tool. Face-to-face open-ended interviews, a survey, and archival data in the form of
observations collected yearly as part of program evaluation for professional development were
all used to answer the research questions. Research questions focused on (a) the impact of a
student-supported professional development model on teachers’ perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness, and intent to use technology in classroom instruction; (b) the impact of a student-
supported professional development model on teachers’ actual use of technology in classroom
instruction; and (c) the impact of sustained, student-supported professional development of
technology on teachers’ willingness to integrate technology into classroom instruction. The
theory guiding this study was the technology acceptance model (TAM), which focuses on user
acceptance of an information system (Davis, 1989). The theory of reasoned action (TRA) is the
foundation for the TAM (Davis, 1989). Data analysis followed the process of Yin’s (2011) five-
phased cycle including compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting, and concluding.
The four themes that emerged during the analysis of this case study included: skill and
knowledge development, lack of use prior to intervention/professional development, successful
experience with technology, and evidence of acceptance and integration.
Keywords: technology acceptance model (TAM), perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness, intent to use, actual use, and professional development.
4
Copyright Page
5
Dedication
I want to thank my husband, Vance Whitt, and our five children: Sura, Aden,
Shelby, Tryston, and Shila for their support during the writing of my dissertation. I am glad
that the six of you not only supported me, but also were willing to embark on this journey
together. I love you with all of my heart.
I want to thank my parents, John Owens, Sr., and Laura Sue Freeze, for always
supporting my dreams. I also want to thank my family and friends who have supported me
on my journey through life.
I want to thank my dissertation Chair, Dr. Courduff, and my committee members,
Dr. Szapkiw and Dr. Wendt, for their support. I am glad that they all agreed to be part of
my committee. I would also like to thank Kelli Myers for her support throughout this
journey.
I want to thank Dr. Fred Davis for allowing me to not only use, but also modify the
technology acceptance model survey that he used in his 1989 research.
I dedicate this dissertation to my family and to other children who were likewise
raised in a lower-income family. Remember that you are capable of doing anything you put
your mind to.
6
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 3
Copyright Page ................................................................................................................................ 4
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 5
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 9
List of Abreviations ...................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 11
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 11
Background ............................................................................................................................... 11
Situation to Self ........................................................................................................................ 14
Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 16
Purpose Statement ..................................................................................................................... 17
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 17
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 18
Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 20
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 23
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 23
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 23
Related Literature ..................................................................................................................... 29
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 54
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 54
7
Design ....................................................................................................................................... 54
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 57
Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 57
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 59
Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 60
The Researcher's Role ............................................................................................................... 62
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 63
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 70
Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 72
Credibility ................................................................................................................................. 72
Dependability and Comfirmability ........................................................................................... 74
Transferability ........................................................................................................................... 75
Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................................. 75
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 76
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 77
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 77
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 78
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 83
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 112
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 114
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 114
Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 115
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 118
8
Implications ............................................................................................................................ 127
Delimitations and Limitations ................................................................................................ 130
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 134
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 134
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 136
APPENDIX A: TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND SCRIPT .................................. 163
APPENDIX B: ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND SCRIPT ................... 166
APPENDIX C: TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL SURVEY .................................... 169
APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVAL .............................................................................................. 171
APPENDIX E: INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE ................................................................... 172
APPENDIX F: INFORMED CONSENT ................................................................................... 174
APPENDIX G: TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SESSIONS…………177
APPENDIX H: TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL SURVEY PERMISSION ........... 179
APPENDIX I: SAMPLE OBSERVATION NOTES ................................................................. 181
APPENDIX J: SAMPLE REFLECTIVE JOURNAL………………………...………………. 182
APPENDIX K: PRIMARY THEMES AND SUBTHEMES…………………………………. 183
9
List of Tables
Table 1: Teacher and Administrator Participants ……………………………………………. 81
Table 2: Technology Acceptance Survey Results …………………………………………… 86
Table 3: TAM Component Survey Results …………………………………….……………. 88
Table 4: Emergent Themes from Research ………………………………………………….. 89
Table 5: Research Questions and Theme Alignment ……………………………………….. 106
10
List of Abbreviations
Generation of Youth and Educators Succeeding (GenYes)
Information and Communities Technology (ICT)
Interactive Whiteboard (IWB)
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Investigation for Quality Understanding and Engagement for Students and Teachers (iQUEST)
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Technology-Based Assessments (TBA)
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Overview
Chapter One provides the foundation for a descriptive case study on teachers’ technology
acceptance and classroom integration in the context of a student-supported professional
development model. The technology acceptance model (TAM) is used as the theoretical
framework, which guided the examination of teachers’ perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness, intent to use, and actual use of technology. This chapter discusses the problem,
purpose, and significance of the study. Three research questions are introduced. A discussion on
situation to self, the limitations, and the delimitations of this study are provided.
Background
Even with the billions of dollars that the United States spends on educational software
and digital content, technology integration in classroom instruction is still underutilized
(DeNisco, 2014; Goo, Watt, Park, & Hosp, 2012; Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010; More & Hart,
2013; Mundy, Kupczynski, & Kee, 2012; Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012; Teo, 2009). While not a
natural consequence of its availability, meaningful technology integration in classroom
instruction is indeed important as it has been shown to boost student achievement and learning
(Machado & Chung, 2015). Delen and Bulut (2011) conducted research to determine if student
exposure to technology at school and home impacted student achievement in mathematics and
science. These researchers concluded that students with more exposure to technology performed
better in science and mathematics (Delen & Bulut, 2011). They discussed that technology use at
home was a predictor of science and mathematics performance; however, school usage had a
limited impact because there was a lack of integration in classroom instruction (Delen & Bulut,
2011).
12
Research conducted by Chacko, Appelbaum, Kim, Zhao, and Montclare (2015)
demonstrated student success when technology was integrated into academic content. For two
summers, these researchers studied technology integration during a bioengineering program
provided for high school students. Chacko et al. concluded that technology in science instruction
was beneficial for the participants, as student work for lesson topics one (diabetes) and two
(HIV/AIDS) demonstrated 100% mastery. Cancer, which was topic three, resulted in 93% of
students mastering the content.
A vital factor influencing teachers’ technology acceptance and integration in the
classroom is effective professional development (DeNisco, 2014; Foughty & Keller, 2011;
Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007; Machado & Chung, 2015). Professional development is the process
of enhancing the instructional practices and knowledge of teachers as a means to improve student
learning (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). Teachers need
relevant and effective professional development support in the area of technology use as an
instructional tool in the classroom (Wang, Myers, & Yanes, 2010). Unfortunately, professional
development with regard to the use of technology is often ineffective and does not results in the
acceptance and integration of the technology in classroom instruction (Akengin, 2008;
Desimone, 2009; Howley, Wood, & Hough, 2011; Machado & Chung, 2015; Ravitz, 2009;
Smolin & Lawless, 2010).
The majority of technology professional development initiatives include a one-day,
lecture-based approach without any follow-up or additional support services provided. The
result of this professional development approach is that teachers feel that they are inadequately
prepared to effectively use technology during classroom instruction (Dede, Ketelhut,
Whitehouse, Breit, & McCloskey, 2009; DeNisco, 2014; Howley et al., 2011). Feeling
13
inadequately prepared, teachers do not integrate technology in their classrooms despite research
supporting the benefits of utilization during instruction (Machado & Chung, 2015). Ndongfack
(2015) discussed professional development practiced for the past two decades in Cameroon. It
consisted of one-day training sessions at the end of each term, resulting in a total of three
sessions per year. The findings, as published in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 annual reports, support
the fact that one-day training sessions are ineffective in teacher acceptance and integration of
technology into classroom instruction. The reports concluded that the teachers preferred long
term or ongoing technology professional development opportunities.
Gray et al. (2010) concluded that 66% of the teachers in their study spent eight hours or
less on activities or tasks that provided them with technology professional development within a
12-month timeframe. The one-day model, in addition to the small portion of time allotment for
technology professional development, suggests teachers’ technology professional development
may need to be restructured to ensure acceptance and effective integration of technology into the
classroom.
Research has shown that effective technology training should be characterized by
professional development that is long-term or ongoing, is embedded into day-to-day practices,
and is accompanied by a mentor or coach (Lutrick & Szabo, 2012; Ndongfack, 2015; O’Koye,
2010). A study by Duran, Brunvand, Ellsworth, and Sendag (2012) using 218 teachers and
administrators that provided a district-wide, research-based professional development model
focused on the development and usage of wikis in classroom instruction. The research-based
professional development model included new roles for teachers such as mentoring and collegial
learning, and was an ongoing process. During the six-month study, teacher participants received
numerous technology professional development sessions. In addition to the professional
14
development sessions, follow-up support and one-on-one instructional opportunities were
provided. The results suggested that professional development had a significant impact on
teacher technology, specifically as it related to the increase of knowledge and skills of
participants. Duran et al. also concluded that research-based professional development enhanced
learning as well as changed technology practices in classroom instruction. After the study was
completed, Duran et al. noted that 57% of the participants continued to use wiki sites; however,
they stressed that more work was needed to understand technology professional development
that results in teacher acceptance and is effective in supporting integration of technology into
classroom practice (DeNisco, 2014; Machado & Chung, 2015; O’Koye, 2010). This descriptive
case study focused on teacher technology acceptance and classroom integration in context to a
specific technology professional development model, which included many elements of effective
professional development including long-term and on-going, connecting technology to
instruction, and embedding it into day-to-day practices. It however extends the professional
development knowledge base in that it included another element, elementary student support,
that has received little to no attention in research.
Situation to Self
My years as a classroom teacher, instructional coach, and instructional technology
director have led me to recognize an increasing need for teacher technology acceptance and
integration into classroom instruction, as well as for effective technology professional
development. Having experienced technology integration firsthand, I also know and understand
that there are obstacles to achieving both acceptance and usage of technology by teachers.
As a qualitative researcher, my philosophical assumption that guided this study was the
paradigm of constructivism. I chose this paradigm because reality focused on interpretations of
15
each individual (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Constructivism is a paradigm that is used when one
wants to provide each participants perception as they will each vary. This study implemented
three data collection methods where I was fully immersed, thus adhering to the constructivism
framework (Charmaz, 2014).
Ontological assumptions, which address multiple realities and attempt to discover the
nature of the reality, were a part of this case study (Creswell, 2013; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). The
words of each participant were voiced through interviews, a survey, and archival data consisting
of classroom observations conducted during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school year as part of
program evaluation.
This study relied on epistemological assumptions, wherein I am “trying to get as close as
possible to the participants being studied” (Creswell, 2013, p. 20). As a means of striving to
achieve an accurate picture of what each participant was saying (Creswell, 2013), I conducted all
professional development sessions in participants’ classrooms. All professional development
sessions had occurred during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as part of a district
technology integration rollout plan, which included a professional development program
evaluation component that I both created and implemented. My active involvement in
professional development sessions provided additional opportunities to learn and understand the
level of technology integration of participants as well as their experiences with technology in
classroom practices.
This study revealed rhetorical assumptions, which addressed my need to write in a
manner that was personal and based on the findings that are credible, transferable and
dependable to provide a holistic view (Creswell, 2013; Feagin, Orum, & Sjoberg, 1991). My job
was to accurately report all observations in an objective manner (O’Neil, 1998). To do so, I used
16
open-ended interview questions for teachers (Appendix A) and administrators (Appendix B),
transcribed the responses, and then provided participants with the opportunity to review and
clarify the responses in order to member check. In addition, participants reviewed the findings.
This ensured that the recorded answers were both objective and a direct reflection of the
responses provided by each participant.
Problem Statement
Despite researchers’ support for the advantages of technology inclusion in the classroom
(e.g., increase in student achievement), technology integration in classroom instruction has not
changed much in the last decade (DeNisco, 2014; Morgan, 2014; Navidad, 2013; Schnellert &
Keengwe, 2012; Tamim, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011). This lack of
increased use of technology is primarily the consequence of ineffective technology professional
development for teachers (DeNisco, 2014; Goo et al., 2012; Gray et al., 2010; Howley et al.,
2011; Machado & Chung, 2015; More & Hart, 2013; Ravitz, 2009; Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012;
Tamim et al., 2011). While numerous research studies on technology professional development
exist, research on an effective model resulting in an increase of teacher acceptance and
integration of technology in elementary classroom instruction is limited (DeNisco, 2014;
Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012; Skoretz, 2011). While some research exists on using a coach or
mentor and providing continuous educational support as a tool to increase technology acceptance
and integration in the classroom, they are neither commonly used, nor cost effective (Machado &
Chung, 2015). There is a gap in the literature that addresses elementary student-supported
technology professional development. This case study included students as a support for
professional development to raise teacher technology acceptance and integration into classroom
instruction.
17
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this descriptive case study was to examine teachers’ technology
acceptance and classroom integration in the context of a student-supported professional
development model at an elementary school located in the southern part of the United States. In
this descriptive case study, technology was defined as using the Internet on an iPad™ or laptop in
a classroom environment as an instructional and learning tool. Student-supported professional
development was defined as teachers receiving and participating in nine sessions of technology
professional development with the students in their classroom. Student-supported technology
professional development occurred in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school year as part of a two-year
district technology integration rollout plan; therefore, it was only conducted for two years. A
specific agenda (Appendix G) was implemented, which included specific tasks and a homework
component. Student support included enhancing teacher technology knowledge and application;
motivation; exposure; comfort level; and ability to explore, demonstrate and recall skills.
Students exhibit technology expertise, are more competent with technology, and have a higher
set of technology skills than teachers (Bajt, 2011; Gu, Zhu, & Guo, 2013). The theory guiding
this study was the TAM, as it was used to explain teacher technology acceptance and integration
into classroom instruction (Davis, 1989).
Significance of the Study
Empirical research targeting elementary student-supported professional development
does not exist. Research beginning as early as the 1990s discussed elementary students as
technology troubleshooters, but not as support during professional development (Corso &
Devine, 2013). The research that is available focuses on middle school and college students
18
taking on technology leadership roles resulting in integration into classroom instruction, but not
in an elementary setting (Breiner, 2009; Corso & Devine, 2013; Gu et al., 2013).
Although researchers have identified effective elements of professional development,
there was a gap in the literature addressing the potential of elementary student-supported
professional development (Duran et al., 2012; Gayton & McEwan, 2010; Koh & Newman, 2009;
Neuman & Cunningham, 2009; Potter & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). Furthermore, effective
technology professional development models are needed, especially at the elementary level.
Examining teachers’ technology acceptance and classroom integration in the context of a
student-supported professional development model, through a longitudinal study, could possibly
answer how. This study offers an effective professional development model that school
personnel can adopt to enhance teacher technology acceptance and use in the classroom.
An in-depth examination of teachers’ perspectives pertaining to long-term technology
professional development occurred in this study, thus adding to the literature as researchers have
discussed the importance of conducting ongoing or long-term technology professional
development (Lutrick & Szabo, 2012; Matherson, Wilson, & Wright, 2014). Rather than
implementing one-day technology professional development, which has been shown to be
generally ineffective, this study provided support for the implementation of long-term programs
(Blackmon, 2013; Borthwick & Pierson, 2008; Dede et al., 2009).
Research Questions
Technology professional development plays a role in teacher acceptance and integration
of technology in classroom instruction (DeNisco, 2014; Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Sadik,
Sendurur, & Sendurur, 2012). Research supports effective elements of professional development
that enhance teachers’ acceptance of technology and integration into classroom instruction
19
(Lutrick & Szabo, 2012; O’Koye, 2010); however, additional studies are needed to develop
effective models for supporting it, especially at the elementary level (DeNisco, 2014; Machado
& Chung, 2015; O’Koye, 2010). Three research questions were used to study teachers’
technology acceptance and classroom integration in the context of a student-supported
professional development model. Research Question One focused on teachers’ beliefs that
technology will be effort-free and good for their job, along with their plan to use technology as
an instructional tool in classroom instruction.
RQ 1: How will the integration of a student-supported professional development model
impact teachers’ perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intent to use technology in
classroom instruction?
Because it has been available throughout their lives, today’s elementary students have an
understanding of technology that previous generations lacked (Bajt, 2011; McAlister, 2009).
Therefore, they also tend to have well-developed technology skills, knowledge, and
competencies (Bajt, 2011; Gu et al., 2013). Research supports the need for teachers to rely on
the technology expertise that their students possess (Corso & Devine, 2013; Krier, 2008).
Research Question Two addresses how student-supported professional development impacts
teachers’ ability to use technology in the classroom.
RQ 2: How will the integration of a student-supported professional development model
impact teachers’ actual use of technology in classroom instruction?
Research supports that professional development is the primary factor impacting teacher
acceptance of technology and technology integration in the classroom (DeNisco, 2014; Ertmer et
al., 2012). The process of studying the impact on teachers’ technology use in classroom
instruction provided an understanding of teacher acceptance. Research Question Three studies
20
the relationship between a student-supported professional development model and teachers’
technology integration in the classroom.
RQ 3: What evidence suggests that student-supported professional development for
technology is responsible for the encouragement of teachers’ technology integration into
classroom instruction?
Most of the literature discussing technology professional development focuses on
ineffective models (DeNisco, 2014; Gray et al., 2010; Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012; Skoretz,
2011). There are certain effective elements of professional development supported by research,
such as professional development learning that is embedded into day-to-day practices, is long-
term or ongoing, and uses a mentor or coach; however, no research exists that targets elementary
student support for professional development (Lutrick & Szabo, 2012, O’Koye, 2010).
Definitions
1. Actual use - The genuine utilization of a specific technology a person exhibits based on
the person’s perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intent towards using.
Actual use is actual computer adoption behavior (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warsaw, 1989).
2. Intent to use - Based on perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Intent to use is
the calculated goal a person has towards technology application. User intention is the
actual plan that a user will employ technology (Davis et al., 1989).
3. Perceived ease of use - A construct of the TAM focusing on a person’s belief that
technology will be effortless (Davis, 1989). Perceived ease of use is an influence on
perceived usefulness based on the thought that if technology is easier to integrate, then it
is convenient.
21
4. Perceived usefulness - A construct of the TAM that focuses on the extent that a person
believes the system will be good for his or her job (Davis, 1989).
5. Professional development - The process of enhancing teacher instructional practices and
knowledge as a means to improve student learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009).
Furthermore, professional development includes providing group instruction and/or
activities focusing on specific skills, attitudes, and extending professional knowledge
(Guskey, 2000).
6. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) - A model introduced by Davis (1989) based
on theory of reasoned action. The TAM provides information regarding a person’s
perception of technology and usage behavior (Davis et al., 1989). Four of the TAM
constructs are user perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, intent to use technology
and actual use of technology or technology devices.
Summary
This study examined teachers’ technology acceptance and classroom integration in the
context of a student-supported professional development model. Specifically, describing how
student-supported professional development influences teachers’ technology acceptance and
integration in the classroom. The theoretical framework for this case study was based on the
TAM (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989), which was introduced in Chapter One and then discussed
in depth throughout Chapter Two. The problem statement, purpose for conducting the study,
significance of the study, and research questions were discussed in this chapter. A presentation
of the gaps in literature provided a framework for this study.
A descriptive case study was selected because an understanding of an intervention
consisting of student-supported professional development as it pertains to a real-life context,
22
teacher technology acceptance, and integration was obtained (Stake, 1995, Yin, 2013).
Specifically, using multiple methods to avow an in-depth investigation. The data collection
methods for this study included a survey, open-ended face-to-face interviews, and archival data
consisting of classroom observations collected yearly, during 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years,
as part of program evaluation. Participants consisted of five elementary school teachers located
in the southern part of the United States who received the student-supported technology
professional development model and two administrator participants who observed student-
supported technology professional development at least three times during the 2013-14 and/or
2014-15 school years.
23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
In several studies that focuse on teachers’ use of technology conducted in various
settings ranging from kindergarten through higher education, less than half of the teachers
across all the studies reported that they used technology regularly in their classroom instruction
(DeNisco, 2014; Gray et al., 2010; Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012). Teachers report that a lack of
professional development focusing on technology for instructional purposes was the main
reason for limited technology inclusion in classroom instruction. This suggests the need for an
effective technology professional development model.
This chapter provides a review of literature discussing (a) the theoretical framework; (b)
technology integration in the classroom; (c) professional development; (d) issues that impede
professional development and technology integration; and (f) students as support for technology
integration in classrooms. A summary of the selection leading to the research gap concludes the
chapter.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this research study was the technology acceptance model
(TAM), which is based on the theory of reasoned action (TRA). TAM focuses on the
interactions that occur between a person’s perception of technology and the person’s computer
usage behavior (Davis et al., 1989). Knight (2012) discussed the importance of teachers’
perceptions as a main factor in research on technology integration. TAM is based on the central
beliefs that using technology is effortless and good for a person’s profession, resulting in
technology use (Davis, 1989).
24
Theory of Reasoned Action
TRA focuses on a person’s performance of a specific behavior as primarily determined
by that person’s behavioral intention (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Ajzen and Fishbein further
explained that a person’s behavioral intention is jointly determined by the person’s attitude and
the subjective norm concerning the behavior in question. Attitude refers to a person’s
mannerisms towards a behavior and specific performance of the behavior with limited regard to
the overall performance (Fishbein & Azjen, 1980). Subjective norm is based on the opinions of
others and consists of a person’s perception about whether to perform or not perform a specific
behavior (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
While originally introduced as a theory in social psychology, TRA has since been applied
to specific domains like technology. For example, in 1980, studies that focused on the way that
an individual adopts certain behaviors, technologies, or advice were included in TRA (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980; Wallace & Sheetz, 2014). In terms of technology, when people view it as
favorable, they are more likely to acquire and utilize it (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Wallace &
Sheetz, 2014).
Technology Acceptance Model
Davis (1989) found inspiration for TAM in technology-focused applications of TRA and
introduced his theory as a tool for understanding technology use based on external factors,
beliefs, attitudes, and intentions (Davis et al., 1989). However, while TRA both applies to theory
and forms the foundation for TAM, some key differences between the two theories exist. Both
TRA and TAM discuss belief as a determining factor in attitude; however, attitude determinants
vary within each theory. Specifically, TRA asserts that “external stimuli influence attitudes only
indirectly through changes in the person’s belief structure” (Davis et al., 1989, p. 984), thus
25
providing a framework to analyze how a person responds to a particular situation. TAM, on the
other hand, is used to provide possible explanations for why the individual did or did not adopt
the technology in question (Davis et al., 1989; Hu, Clark, & Ma, 2003). TRA, therefore,
encompasses intention or behavior and is used as a predictor, while TAM targets user intention
and adaptive behavior. Additionally, TRA combines both perceived ease of use and usefulness
as part of behavioral intention, while TAM holds them as separate and distinct.
Despite the refinement made possible by this distinction, TAM is limited insofar as
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness cannot explain all user acceptance behaviors
(Juhary, 2014). Therefore, TAM has been modified and expanded to include additional variables
and subjective norms (Venkatesh & Bala, 2013; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Wolk, 2009).
Further, TAM has been modified as a tool to explain a person’s utilization of information
technology, specifically the determinants of perceived ease of use and usefulness. The result has
been the development of various models such as the TAM2 (Venkatesh, & Davis, 2000), the
TAM3 (Venkatesh, & Bala, 2013), and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).
These adjusted versions address guidance to practitioners; suggestions for a practical
intervention; facilitation of conditions; and the influences of gender, age, voluntarism or
experience, which are not examined in this study. This study will instead attempt to answer how
student-supported professional development may impact teachers’ technology acceptance and
classroom integration. Because perceived ease of use and usefulness are important factors in this
investigation, the original TAM model was selected for this case study.
Technology acceptance model constructs. The four constructs of TAM are perceived
ease of use, perceived usefulness, intent to use and actual use. While a number of factors
26
influence teachers’ intention to use and actual use of technology in the classroom, two key
factors are beliefs about ease of use and usefulness (Abbitt, 2011; Bingimals, 2009; DeNisco,
2014; Howley et al., 2011; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Glazewski, Newby, &
Ertmer, 2010).
Perceived ease of use. The validity and reliability of perceived ease of use determines
user acceptance (Kanchanatanee, Suwanno, & Jarenvongrayab, 2014; Moses, Wong, Baker, &
Mahmud, 2013; Naeini & Krishnam, 2012; Nasser Al-Suqri, 2014). In education, the degree to
which technology is implemented into instruction depends on teacher acceptance (Timothy,
2009), which is heavily influenced by perceived ease of use. For instance, recent research about
attitudes toward laptop use in a sample of 292 science and 278 mathematics teachers
demonstrated that perceived ease of use was a significant predictor of perceived usefulness of
technology (Moses et al., 2013).
At least one study indicated that perceived ease of use influenced the technology use of
students, as well. Naeini and Krishnam (2012) conducted research with a sample size of 201
Malaysian elementary school students focusing on their use of computer games. Specifically,
they examined usage patterns based on perceived usefulness and ease of use. Naeini and
Krishnam found significant positive correlation between these two variables and actual use of the
technology. While perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness resulting in actual use among
students will not be studied directly in the proposed study, it will be an essential component, as
student acceptance of technology will be used as a resource to support both technology
integration into classroom instruction and professional development.
Perceived usefulness. Perceived usefulness is the realization that new technology will
increase or improve overall performance (Davis, 1993). This perception directly affects a
27
person’s intent to use technology (Chen, Chen, & Kazman, 2007; Rouibah, Abbas, & Rouibah,
2011). Researchers have affirmed perceived usefulness as a construct in TAM to determine user
acceptance and actual use of technology (Amin, Rezaei, & Abolghasemi, 2014; Holden & Rada,
2011; Moses et al., 2013; Williams, Slade, & Dwivedi, 2014).
One of these studies examined the level of e-reader use among a sample of 234
consumers, and the researchers concluded that perceived usefulness positively influenced intent
to use (Williams et al., 2014). Williams et al. supported existing TAM relationships, specifically
technology perceived, as being useful was more likely to be accepted and used than was
technology not deemed useful. Other research indicated that the opposite is also true, as Holden
and Rada (2011) conducted a study consisting of a sample size of 99 kindergarten through 12th
grade teachers focusing on educational technology acceptance and usage behavior. They
concluded that when the user did not accept educational technology or did not believe that it
improved work performance, the result was failure to implement the technology into the
classroom.
Intent to use. Research has suggested that the variables discussed previously (i.e.,
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness) may influence teachers’ intent to use technology
(Holzinger, Searle, & Wernbacher, 2011; Kanchanatanee et al., 2014; Martin, 2012; Potter &
Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012). This variable mediates the relationship between perceptions and
actual use (Bagozzi, Davis, & Warshaw, 1992). Specifically, studies indicated that teacher
perception of a technology as useful and easy to use directly increased intent to use, which then
influenced actual use (Al-Adwan, Al-Adwan, & Smedley, 2013; Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989;
Lin, 2013; Park & del Pobil, 2013b; Yucel & Gulbahar, 2013).
28
Actual use. Researchers have concluded that perceived ease of use and usefulness have
an indirect effect—and intent to use a direct effect—on actual use (Lee, Hsieh, & Hsu, 2011;
Park, Rhoads, Hou, & Lee, 2014).
Validity and reliability of measures of the technology acceptance model. The validity
and reliability of TAM has been examined in numerous research studies (Ma & Liu, 2005;
Mahmood, Hall, & Swanberg, 2001; Moon & Kim, 2001; Park & del Pobil, 2013a; Park & del
Pobil, 2013b; Roca & Gagné, 2008; Tai & Ting, 2011; Wang, Lin, & Luarn, 2006; Wong, Ooi,
& Hew, 2013). More than a decade of research findings has shown that the survey (Appendix C)
used to measure the four TAM constructs is robust and powerful in determining the level of
users’ acceptance of technology (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), and assessments of the survey have
yielded reliability levels between 0.70 and 0.92 (Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Gefen,
Karahanna, & Straub, 2003; Jiang, Hsu, Klein, & Lin, 2000; Klopping & McKinney, 2004;
Selim, 2003; Wolk, 2009). Such high coefficients indicate that the survey provides a reliable
way to measure technology use and its influences.
Related Literature
Changes in teaching practices may be needed in order to effectively teach today’s
students (Huang and Yang, 2014; Matulich, Papp, & Haytko, 2008). Teachers who want to meet
the needs of their students may need to understand and use technology in classroom instruction
(Aviles & Eastman, 2012). In terms of bringing about this change, the degree to which
implementing effective professional development increases perceived usefulness, perceived ease
of use, and intent to use—and thus whether it increases actual classroom use—has long been a
topic of debate.
29
Despite the fact that professional development has been integrated into both public and
private schools at all levels—as well as into higher education—no specific technology
professional development program or strategy has a strong empirical research base to support its
use to increase effective technology integration in classroom instruction (DeNisco, 2014; Gray et
al., 2010; Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012; Skoretz, 2011). However, researchers have suggested
certain elements as being necessary for effective technology professional development (Lawless,
& Pellegrino, 2007; Hayden, Ouyang, Olszewski & Bielefeldt, 2011; Potter & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012). These elements consist of ongoing or long-term support, embedding of
technology into day-to-day activities, and mentoring or coaching (Lutrick & Szabo, 2012;
O’Koye, 2010).
In addition, research conducted by Hutchison (2012) focusing on professional
development and understanding the integration of technology into instruction provided insight as
to four factors that teachers believe would enhance their usage. Open-ended survey questions
focusing on teachers’ perceptions were gathered from 1441 literacy teachers. Data analysis
concluded that teachers need: (a) time to explore and prepare literacy lessons with technology
integration; (b) additional access to technology equipment; (c) knowledge consisting of
background, higher-level thinking, and presenters; and (d) ongoing or follow-up provided by
support personal.
A study conducted by Wang, Hsu, Campbell, Coster, and Longhurst (2014) concluded
similar results. Data collected from 24 teacher participants and 1,060 student participants
examining the technology savviness of students versus teachers resulted in five barriers to
technology integration in classroom instruction. The five barriers included: (a) limited access to
technology, (b) time constraints, (c) limited technology skills and knowledge, (d) limited
30
integration skills, and (e) school policies limiting support and resources. Teachers also
acknowledged that the majority of technology integration was limited to word processing,
presentation tools, and Internet researching.
Effective technology professional development instruction should also incorporate
device, software, or tool operation maintenance and instruction, as well as integrate instruction
that focuses on fostering curricular connections. Potter and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012) argued
that effective teacher technology professional development should include technology operation,
technology application and technology integration. During this study, technology professional
development will include components addressing each of these variables.
Linton and Geddes (2013) discussed a small school district in North Carolina. The
district’s technology plan provided ongoing long-term support, embedded into day-to-day
activities, mentoring, time to plan and explore, instruction on device and software, fostered
curricular connections, and built teacher technology confidence. The results of the initiative
include the district being recognized as one of the 10 highest achieving in the state, despite being
low-funded. Classroom environments throughout the district are rich in technology integration
as demonstrated daily throughout the district. Specific examples include students creating videos
to send to Olympic athletes or interactive mathematic lessons. Despite the level of technology
integration and student achievement increasing with this initiative, the role of technology
supported by students was not examined. Therefore, more research in this area is needed
because it is unknown to what extent student-support would have on teacher technology usage in
classroom instruction.
31
Influence of Technology Integration on Student Engagement and Achievement
A need exists to more fully integrate technology into classroom instruction. Not only
should students be better able to navigate a highly technological world, but research also
indicates that the use of technology in the classroom results in higher levels of student
engagement and achievement. In terms of the latter, researchers have found not only that
students score higher when technology integration occurred in the classroom and was useful
(Morgan, 2014; Navidad, 2013; Tamim et al., 2011), but also that technology continues to be
underutilized in instruction (Goo et al., 2012; More & Hart, 2013; Sanders, 2009; Tamim et al.,
2011; Teo, 2009).
Students appear to agree, as 80% of student respondents in one study stated that a hands-
on practice of the kind made possible by technology is the best method for learning (Breiner,
2009). In another examination of this question, Hyland and Kranzow (2012) considered the
perceptions of both teachers and students in the use of technology, particularly in the use of e-
texts and e-libraries, in developing critical thinking and self-directed search. These researchers
administered close-ended and open-ended survey questionnaires to 92 students and eight faculty
members from a private, post-secondary institution. Analysis of both student and faculty
feedback revealed that e-materials had a positive influence on students’ learning behavior
involving critical thinking and self-directed learning, which confirmed the researchers’ (Hyland
& Kranzow, 2012) alternative hypothesis. Both students and faculty members viewed e-libraries
as efficient in providing a wide range of information in the shortest possible time.
Analysis of the open-ended questions indicated that the majority of the students believed
they performed better in class upon using the e-materials in the sense that they had access to a
wide pool of the latest information in an organized manner. It should be noted that in this study,
32
self-reporting was used, and it may be possible that the students’ general positivity toward
technology prompted them to overestimate its ability to help them think critically. As such,
more research is needed to better understand the link between technology integration and student
achievement.
A longitudinal study spanning three years concluded similar results. Blanchard,
LePrevost, Tolin, and Guiterrez (2016) investigated ongoing technology professional
development (TDP) of 20 mathematics and science teachers in high-poverty school districts.
There results concluded that teachers who participated in TDP demonstrated an increase in their
technology usage comfort level. Furthermore, the students of teachers that participated in TDP
demonstrated higher assessment scores in both academic areas than students in non-TDP
participant classrooms. The study also identified that student exposure to more than one TDP
teacher resulted in higher achievement scores and substantial academic gains.
Not only does research support the theory that technology integration into classroom
increases student achievement and engagement, but it also supports increased graduation rates.
Yasar, Mailekal, Little, and Veronsei (2014) studied a specific teacher technology training
program that emphasized technology, content, and pedagogy. The study consisted of providing
180 teachers from 15 schools ongoing technology training and support spanning three years.
Data concluded that student engagement and achievement scores in both mathematics and
science increased based off of comparisons conducted on the control and treatment group.
Additionally, graduation rates of schools in the treatment group drastically increased, while no
change was observed in the control group.
Understanding of the potential benefit of technology integration in classroom instruction
may emerge through various learning styles. Huang and Yang (2014) examined preferred
33
learning styles of students and learning occurring in kindergarten through 12th grade classrooms.
The sample size consisted of 28,300 primary and secondary students located in Beijing, China.
All participants were administered the Digital Native Questionnaire by Horizon Research
Publishing consisting of 30 questions. A focus group interview consisting of 28 students
occurred, and participants were interviewed in groups of four using a six-part questionnaire
focusing on content, sequence, materials provided, pedagogy, ICT usage, learning outcomes, and
assessment.
The researchers found that content sequence, pedagogy, learning outcome, material
provided, and assessment learning differed between digital native preferred and K-12 classes
(Huang & Yang, 2014). Huang and Yang provided an analysis of what students needed to learn
in classrooms and demonstrated the pitfalls of current classroom teaching. The research
provided a roadmap for changing classroom teaching and suggested that teaching styles must
change to meet the needs of Generation Y (born 1980-1994) students.
Paradoxically, Generation Y and Generation Z (born 1995-2010) students, in addition to
needing more technology-driven instruction, are already more literate in this way than are
students from previous generations, such as Baby Boomer (born 1946-1964) and Generation X
(born 1965-1979) (Dupont, 2015). Current students feel as if teachers’ technology comfort level
inhibits their technology usage in the classroom (Greer & Sweeney, 2012). Today’s students
have been immersed in technology since birth, resulting in them being more technologically
savvy than their predecessors (Bajt, 2011; Gu et al., 2013). The constant exposure to technology
has been the foundation for the ability of today’s students to try different technology avenues to
obtain success (McAlister, 2009). Greer and Sweeney (2012) stated that over 90% of students
have a computer in their home.
34
Research conducted by Wikia Technology (2013) supports the higher level of technology
expertise associated with Generation Z. The study surveyed more than 1,200 teens ranging in
age from 13 to 18 and focused on teens and technology. Data collection concluded that members
of Generation Z display quick technology adaptive behaviors and use technology in more
advanced ways than previous generations and in a manner that is beneficial to their future.
Influence of technology on student engagement. Another, well-established element of
perceived educational benefit for students is engagement. Research has indicated that
engagement increases as technology is integrated into the classroom. For example, the Turkish
government began a technology integration program called the Fırsatları Artırma ve Teknolojiyi
İyileştirme Hareketi (FATIH) or Movement to Increase Opportunities and Improve Technology
Project in 52 pilot schools across the country. Pamuk, Çakır, Ergun, Yılmaz, & Ayas, (2013)
conducted a study at 11 of those schools and learned that teachers and students viewed
interactive whiteboards (IWBs) as having a positive impact on demonstrations, lectures, and
reports. Additionally, participants also felt that using them increased their motivation to engage
in lectures. In the literature review of Sung and Hwang (2014), similar conclusions were
reached, as the use of technology in learning and classroom instructions tended to increase the
students’ academic interest and motivation.
Other studies provided support for these conclusions about IWBs. To examine the
impact of its use, Esteves, Paulista, Fiscarelli, and Bizelli (2015) conducted a case study in Selmi
Dei III, a primary school in Araraquara, a region of São Paulo, Brazil, which was chosen due to
its excellence in teaching, as evidenced by numerous awards. The school was given two
additional IWBs as part of one of those awards, which brought the school’s total to three (two in
third-grade classrooms and one in a fifth-grade classroom). Through live and videotaped
35
observation, the researchers inferred that students with greater access to IWBs were more
engaged in class discussions and more patient and well behaved while waiting to use them.
Additionally, only a handful of students refused to use the IWB, and Esteves et al. found that the
refusal was due to fear of not knowing the answer, rather than fear of the IWB itself.
For validity, the researchers also interviewed some students about their experience in
using the IWB, and the majority of them expressed an overwhelmingly positive opinion. The
response was that they understood lessons better and found them to be more engaging than those
utilizing a traditional blackboard and notebook. The researchers concluded that despite the
students’ difficulties, technology inside the classroom—simply the presence of it—might have
served as a motivator in learning, thereby triggering student interest. This finding aligns with
another study among teachers in Turkey, who reported that their students were more attentive to
instruction delivered with the help of IWBs (Türel & Johnson, 2012).
In addition to IWBs, research supports iPads™ and computers increase student
engagement (Dietrich & Balli, 2014). Dietrich and Balli (2014) conducted research at three
different schools studying student perceptions of classroom learning and technology. The use of
iPads™ was integrated into classroom instruction at one site. Participants, consisting of 15
elementary students, reported that iPads™ extended learning, often times made learning feel as if
it was play, and provided an opportunity for student control. Students reported similar
conclusions about computers, stating that they preferred to actually use them personally, rather
than just observe teacher usage. The study also discussed student frustration when teachers
lacked the skills to effectively integrate technology into classroom instruction, specifically
pointing out that this led to student confusion and lack of interest.
36
Immediate feedback is a specific component of technology integration in classroom
instruction. It increases student engagement and academic achievement. Muis, Ranellucci,
Trevors, and Duffy (2015) studied the perceptions of kindergarteners in reference to the impact
of technology in the classroom providing immediate feedback. Data collection consisted of
interviews and various apps, only some of which provided immediate feedback. The sample
included 64 kindergarten students. Data analysis concluded that when students did not receive
feedback, they were not as engaged and demonstrated limited gains in achievement. When apps
provided immediate feedback, engagement increased and higher levels of achievement occurred.
Technology Integration in the Classroom
Integrating technology in the classroom has become common practice among some
teachers (Potter & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2016), and the aforementioned benefits help to explain
why. There are different methods used to promote it within the classroom, and research has
indicated that several strategies, such as linking technology use with improved pedagogy,
helping students function as resources and support, and formalized technology professional
development (especially when featuring mentoring or coaching), can be effective at increasing
technology use by teachers.
Connecting technology to curriculum and instruction. Researchers have investigated
the degree to which teacher perception of relevance of technology to curriculum and
instructional practices relate to technology use in the classroom. Türel and Johnson (2012) used
purposive and convenience sampling to recruit teacher participants that were actively using
IWBs in their Turkish classrooms. There were 174 sixth through 12th-grade teachers who
responded to the survey questionnaire. A typical respondent was a bachelor’s degree holder
under the age of 36 and with fewer than 10 years of teaching experience. The questionnaire used
37
was a researcher-constructed, 26-item Likert scale, which consisted of three subscales: the
effects of IWBs on teaching and learning, the factors motivating IWB use, and the usability of
IWBs. Analysis of the data indicated that the teachers felt IWBs were useful for any subject.
Furthermore, the teachers believed that their pedagogical skills might have improved through
IWB use (Türel & Johnson, 2012).
Utilizing students as technology resources. In addition to linking technology use with
perceived instructional benefits, research has also revealed that students can encourage
technology use among teachers. With access to numerous forms of technology, teachers may
need this kind of assistance in the classroom, and in order to address this need, students have
been trained and taught specific technology tasks (Corso & Devine, 2013; Lau & Yuen, 2013;
Ozel, Ozel, & Cifuentes, 2014; Pamuk et al., 2013). Students in kindergarten through 12th grade
have taken on various roles, primarily troubleshooting with regard to the use of technology in
schools. In some schools, they have even become professional development leaders who teach
basic technology skills to teachers, staff, and other students.
Brooks-Young (2006) discussed the benefits of supporting technology needs of teachers
and schools when students take on various technology roles. The benefits of these roles include
providing students with various opportunities to perform services for other people, as well as
lower school technology costs (Corso & Devine, 2013). As such, students are vital assets to
teachers who implement technology in classroom instruction (Brooks-Young, 2006).
Research investigating students as technology support began in the late 1990s (Corso &
Devine, 2013), and one formalized method for utilizing students as resources is that of student
technology teams, which have been deployed to classrooms when technology issues arise
(Brooks-Young, 2006; Peto, Onishi, & Irish, 1989). Student technology teams consist of
38
students who are taught basic skills, such as how to connect a document camera to a computer,
by technology personnel or librarians. Team members are called upon when these particular
skills are needed in the classroom. As digital world, school resources, and teachers’ needs have
evolved, the roles of student technology team members have changed to include mentoring of
teachers and other students (Corso & Devine, 2013).
Brooks-Young (2006) examined the use of technology teams in two schools in order to
determine their impact. The first school created a group of technology savvy students identified
as “Techno Team,” who were trained by the computer teacher to run several utility programs and
provide software maintenance support. A group of 12 to 15 seventh- and eighth-grade students
were selected yearly as Techno Team members. The second school, by contrast, implemented a
one-to-one technology program that consisted of laptop computers. The technology team at this
school focused on troubleshooting technical issues that might occur on a laptop, and students
were trained by two computer science teachers to fix any minor problems that occurred, as well
as to create a maintenance order for technology technicians on devices having issue that they
couldn’t resolve. The result was that at least one student in each classroom had the skills to fix
or refer out technology issues that might arise (Brooks-Young, 2006).
At times, students have also conducted technology professional development for teachers.
Breiner (2009) wrote about “Technology Wizards,” a student technology team consisting of 26
sixth and seventh-grade students trained throughout an entire school district to provide
technology support to teachers. District training occurred once per month, and some schools
held additional meetings to supplement that training. Technology Wizards were able to provide
first-hand technology training to teachers.
39
With the advances of technology and the educational shift towards technology integration
in classroom instruction, student roles as providers of technology support have begun to change.
Pierce (2012) discussed a specific program called Generation of Youth and Educators
Succeeding (GenYes), in which students are trained to support technology in the school.
GenYes programs encourage student and teacher collaboration through an established curriculum
that focuses on technology skills of Generation Z to enhance technology utilization. Programs
such as GenYes utilize student expertise with technology, but do not focus on student-support for
professional development. Thus, more research is needed.
Corso and Devine (2013) conducted a study concluding that technology integration at the
university level was impacted when students were used as mentors for educators (Corso &
Devine, 2013). Another study conducted by Liu, Tsai, and Huang (2015) examining pre-service
teachers and mentor teacher collaborative technology professional development. Participants
consisted of three groups encompassing a mentor and pre-service teacher in a junior high setting.
Data was collected from focus group interviews, classroom observations, lesson plans, and
video-recorded observations. Data analysis concluded that there was an increase in mentor
implementation of technology into classroom instruction based off of support provided by pre-
service teachers. Although student-supported technology professional development was shown
to be effective at the college level and with pre-service teacher support, the potential for
elementary student support is unknown.
Elementary students have a natural understanding of technology and the Internet based on
their exposure since birth (Bajt, 2011). Elementary students learn through trial and error
behaviors, are technology savvy, are multi-taskers, connect, collaborate and access information
easily, and are able to navigate digital environments with ease (Emanuel, 2013; Gibson &
40
Sodeman, 2014; Hartman & McCambridge, 2011). Today’s students are quicker to adapt to
technology shifts than previous generations were; thus, these students tend to accept technology
faster than their teachers (Bajt, 2011; Gu et al., 2013; Krier, 2008).
A significant limitation of these studies is that none examined the degree to which student
classroom support leads to increases in teacher perception regarding the ease of use or usefulness
of technology. While this study provided evidence that this kind of support does, in fact, cause
teachers to perceive technology as being useful and easy to use (and thus more likely to actually
use), the extent to which this relationship actually exists has not been explored previously.
Research was needed to determine whether this link, which this study supported, actually
does exist. As yet, research on student involvement in the use of technology in the classroom
has primarily focused directly on students who troubleshoot technology issues that arise
throughout the academic day (Brooks-Young, 2006). Limited research has been conducted on
students receiving instruction in how to provide technology professional development for
teachers and administrators and how that might relate to changes in computer integration in the
classroom (Gu et al., 2013).
Formalizing technology professional development. Technology professional
development became a new concept in school districts as a result of the passage of the No Child
Left Behind Act (2001), which required technology integration in schools. More recently,
technology has been embedded in the Common Core Standards, which are being implemented
throughout most of the United States (Yim, Warschauer, Zheng, & Lawrence, 2014). The
required integration of technology into school curricula has resulted in the integration of
technology professional development in school districts across the nation (Dede et al., 2009;
Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012).
41
For learning through technology professional development to be sustained, it has been
recommended that institutions not simply provide the technology, but also invest in training
teachers to use it (Persico, Manca, & Pozzi, 2014). Aside from formal training, some schools
provide access to networking, online forums and social media to enable teachers to communicate
with each other and share their experiences, tips, and struggles in using technology in the
classroom (McLeod & Richardson, 2013). While literature in this regard exists that supports
middle school and college student technology professional development for teachers, no research
exists that discusses elementary student support in technology professional development.
Therefore, this study addressed a gap in literature about the effectiveness of teacher training and
its impact on technology acceptance and use in the classroom.
Significance of professional development. Studies suggest that in order to integrate
technology effectively into instruction, teachers need professional development that is both
timely and applicable to classroom practice (DeNisco, 2014; Ertmer et al., 2012). Teacher
technology professional development is the main factor in teachers’ positive attitudes towards
both technology and the integration of technology into the classroom (DeNisco, 2014; Ertmer et
al., 2012). In a study by Badri, Mousavi, Pour, Geravand and Yeganeh (2015), 190 secondary
teachers took part in a survey to determine the relationship between technology professional
development and technology use in the classroom. The results were that the two constructs had a
significant positive correlation, indicating that technology professional development was
predictive of technology use (Badri et al., 2015).
Gerard, Varma, Corliss, and Linn (2011) suggested that classroom teachers who received
professional development to help them understand how technology enhanced and related to
curriculum were more successful at integrating technology into their classrooms than were
42
teachers who did not. This finding indicates that teachers need to understand how to operate and
effectively use technology to promote student learning, and there are numerous devices available
to help them. Unfortunately, technology professional development is not always effective. In a
study of 600 kindergarten through 12th grade teachers, 93% of those surveyed reported that
technology had positive effects on student engagement; however, 46% of these teachers stated
that they lacked the skills to use technology effectively in the classroom (DeNisco, 2014). In a
broader examination, Howley et al. (2011) found that teachers felt as though they had been
inadequately prepared to provide technology opportunities for students. As such, a need exists
for school administration to implement both additional and more effective technology
professional development (DeNisco, 2014).
Understanding how to integrate effective professional development. A lack of empirical
research supporting professional development as a tool to increase effective technology use in
public, private and higher education classroom instruction exists (DeNisco, 2014; Gray et al.,
2010; Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012; Skoretz, 2011), and additional studies of technology
professional development models are needed. Researchers have suggested that certain elements
need to be present in technology professional development. These elements include connecting
technology to instruction, embedding it into day-to-day practices, and providing ongoing or long-
term support as well as curriculum and technology coaching or mentoring (Duran et al., 2012;
Gayton & McEwan, 2010; Koh & Neuman, 2009; Lutrick & Szabo, 2012; Neuman &
Cunningham, 2009; O’Koye, 2010).
Impediments to Effective Technology Integration
Technology has become a significant part of our everyday lives. Daily tasks have been
performed by technological machines far more advanced than they used to be. In the academic
43
field, technology has been incorporated into lectures and demonstrations; however, despite the
wide use of access to technology in the classroom, some educators still face some struggles that
lead them to discontinue use of technology or opt to not use it at all (Dede et al., 2009; DeNisco,
2014; Howley et al., 2011). The following sections will discuss issues that teachers face with
professional development, as well as technology acceptance and integration in the classroom.
Among them is teacher belief, which acts both on its own and in concert with a lack of
institutional support to reduce perceived usefulness and ease of use; intent to use; and actual use
of technology (de Grove, Bourgonjon, & van Looy, 2012; Kusano et al., 2013).
Lack of training and technical skills. In some institutions, funding and facilities seem
to be sufficient, while technology use in the classroom suffers. Asodike and Jaja (2012)
investigated this phenomenon in both public and private primary schools in Rivers State,
Nigeria, and surveyed a sample of 2,100 head teachers, teachers, and students. The
questionnaire used was the Primary School Information and Communities Technology (ICT) Use
Survey, which measures facilities that schools have and how often they are used. The instrument
also measures the factors that hinder the use of ICT facilities, as well as the teachers’ perceptions
of their use.
The results of this investigation indicated that most of the primary schools had at least
one desktop computer per classroom; however, the majority of teachers felt that they did not
have adequate skills in computer operations, as most of them had not undergone training.
Because this study was conducted in Nigeria and amongst a teacher population that lacked access
to technology professional development, its applicability to teachers in the United States may be
limited. However, regardless of the sophistication of the technology in use or the skill level of
44
the teachers using it, a lack of professional development may impede integration (Asodike &
Jaja, 2012).
Lack of motivation for initial or continued technology use. One promising new
technology involves the use of virtual worlds. While research supports teacher interest in using
this technology for teaching, increased interest does not result in corresponding increase in actual
use (Gregory, Scutter, Jacka, McDonald, Farley, & Newman, 2015). To examine this
discrepancy, Gregory et al. (2015) disseminated a self-constructed online survey to 134
institutions across 28 countries, and data analysis consisted of information collected from 223
respondents. A total of 36 percent of the respondents had not used virtual worlds for instruction,
but 60% reported that they would like to try implementing this technology into their classroom.
Of those respondents who were currently using virtual worlds, 84% had used them in the past,
and 90% reported that they wanted to continue using the technology. Interestingly, 18% of the
respondents had used virtual worlds for teaching in the past, but had stopped using it for some
reason. Analysis of the responses on the questionnaire indicated that teachers had either never
used the technology or had stopped using virtual worlds due to technological issues, student
difficulties, institutional issues, and personal perceptions.
Investigating more general technology use, Aypay, Celik, Aypay, and Sever (2012)
studied pre-service teachers in Turkey to examine their intended use of technology in classroom
instruction in the future. The aim of the research was to utilize the framework of TAM to
provide information regarding new teachers’ perceptions of technology use in the classroom.
Convenience sampling led to the inclusion of 487 participants, all from Rize University in
Northeast Turkey. Structural equation modeling of results suggested that the pre-service
teachers’ intention to use technology was influenced by perceived usefulness, attitudes toward
45
computer use, and computer self-efficacy (all of which are aspects of TAM). Other studies (Teo,
Ursavas, & Bahçekapili, 2012) have yielded similar results, indicating that acceptance of
technology use tends to be influenced by perceived ease of use, which varies depending on the
complexity of the technology in question.
Some research has suggested that teachers’ lack of motivation towards technology use
may persist in spite of professional development. Chien, Kao, Yeh, & Lin, (2012) conducted a
study consisting of 322 Taiwanese primary school teachers who had experienced Web-based
professional development. The study focused on attitudes and motivation towards technology
use in the classroom. Despite the professional development, 160 participants reported fewer than
12 hours per week of Internet use. By contrast, 73 reported 13 to 24 hours of use per week, and
89 reported more than 25 hours per week. The researchers administered the 30-item Motivation
toward Web-Based Professional Development Survey to measure personal interest, social
stimulation, external expectation, practical enhancement, and social contact. The researchers
also administered the 27-item Attitude toward Web-Based Professional Development Survey
with the subscales addressing perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, affection, anxiety, and
behavior. Analysis of the data revealed that different motivating factors had different influences
on attitudes toward technology use. Teachers whose primary motivation for technology use was
personal interest tended to have more positive attitudes towards use, while technology use due to
external expectations corresponded with negative attitudes (Chien et al., 2012).
Blackwell, Lauricella, Wartella, Robb, and Schomburg (2013) reached similar
conclusions when they strove to find out what impeded the use of technology among early
childhood education teachers, despite availability of the devices. The study followed the
framework of TAM to address the problem. An online survey was disseminated to 1,329 early
46
childhood teachers who taught children under the age of four. The questionnaire was researcher-
constructed and contained 46 items. Two levels of independent measures: extrinsic
characteristics (school type, school-level socioeconomic status, technology policy, and
professional development) and personal characteristics of teachers (demographic characteristics,
and attitudes toward and perceptions of technology use) were examined.
Results revealed that the devices most available for teachers were digital cameras, laptop
or desktop computers, and TV/DVDs. The least accessible devices were mp3 players, e-readers,
and tablet computers. In terms of school type, center-based programs were the least likely to
have access to technology in general. Teachers who believed that technology was helpful for
administrative tasks alone tended to use the devices less often than did teachers who felt more
strongly about the benefits of technology integration for pedagogy and student achievement
(Blackwell et al., 2013).
Poor attitudes and beliefs toward technology use. It may be that a lack of motivation
for initial or continued technology use results from poor attitude, which may also impede
technology integration in the classroom. Al Bataineh (2014) studied the relationship of teacher
attitudes and perceptions of competency towards the use of technology in classroom instruction.
Convenience sampling led to a study consisting of 221 Jordanian, seventh through 12-grade
social studies teachers who were asked to complete an Arabic version of the Technology in
Education Survey. This version contained 22 items with three subscales: demographic
information, attitudes towards using technology, and competency for using technology. Results
suggested that in addition to teaching experience positively correlating with perceptions of
competency, these perceptions also correlated strongly with attitudes. As such, the findings
47
suggested developing teachers’ acceptance and attitudes help to promote their feelings of
competency in using technology (Al Bataineh, 2014).
Qualitative research on beliefs towards technology usage has yielded similar results.
Chien, Wu and Hsu (2014) conducted such a study of teachers’ beliefs through semi-structured
interviews. The researchers contended that belief is a highly personal and context-based
construct that is revealed more appropriately through language. Forty junior or senior high
school science teachers, with teaching experience ranging between three and 15 years and an
average age of 43 years, were selected through convenience sampling. The data was coded
through an iterative process, and divided into the teachers’ beliefs about technology-based
assessments (TBAs, behavioral, control, and normative) and the frequency of use (non-user,
occasional user, and frequent user).
For the behavioral beliefs, four themes emerged: TBAs presented many uses for the
teachers; Web-based TBAs appeared to be the most useful; most teachers faced difficulties in
using TBAs in spite of perceptions of usefulness; and experiences and personal preferences
affected TBA use. For control beliefs, two themes emerged: The teachers felt that they lacked
time and financial support in TBA use, and participants perceived support as being ineffective,
(i.e., facilitating rather than mentoring). For normative beliefs, there were also two themes: The
teachers felt that TBA use would not be supported by the school administration or the parents,
and the teachers were unsure of the advantages and disadvantages of TBAs in student learning
(Chien et al., 2014). These results suggested that even though TBAs were largely seen as being
useful, a combination of perceived lack of support and poor attitudes compromised the ability of
perceived usefulness to influence intent to use and actual use of technology.
48
Responses to Effective Technology Integration Impediments
Institutions are typically aware of the issues that their educators face with regard to
technology integration in the classroom, and in general, have taken action to address those issues
(Kipsoi, Chang’ach, & Sang, 2012). Some institutions have employed coaches or mentors to aid
their teachers (Li, 2015); some have conducted workshops to enhance their teachers’ technical
skills; and others have trained their students as technology troubleshooters that the teachers can
call for assistance (Pamuk et al., 2013). While these interventions may be effective,
impediments such as poor attitudes or a lack of motivation or support still exist. Researchers
have examined ways to overcome these obstacles, and studies have found that coaching and
mentoring, training, increased access, and student support all work by various means to increase
teacher use of technology.
Coaching and mentoring. Coach and mentor are terms that are used in many
professions; therefore, multiple definitions for these terms exist (Bennett, 2010). Megginson and
Clutterbuck (2005) discuss coaching as guidance targeted at improvement in a targeted skill,
while Bennett (2010) suggested that coaching is often short term and organized by objectives.
Mentoring, on the other hand, is a long-term process where someone with experience guides
someone with limited experience (Bennett, 2010; Dilts, 2004; Hobson, 2003). While both utilize
objectives, mentoring involves guiding a person through specific concepts, while coaching helps
people to ultimately create their own objectives and develop resources to accomplish them
(Bennett, 2010). Despite these differences, Pask and Joy (2007) argued that they should not be
viewed as two different exclusive concepts, but as a unified entity.
Researchers have demonstrated that a mentor or coach is effective in supporting changes
to teacher practices in classroom instruction (Bennett, 2010; Cain, 2009; Hayden et al., 2011;
49
Machado & Chung, 2015; O’Koye, 2010; Resta, Huling, & Yeargain, 2013). Additionally, a
mentor or coach’s presence in the classroom affects whether a teacher integrates technology into
instruction (Duran et al., 2012). Indeed, this guidance is so influential that researchers have also
provided evidence that it is more effective than traditional, in-service technology professional
development (Bennett, 2010; Cain, 2009; Hayden et al., 2011; Machado & Chung, 2015;
O’Koye, 2010; Resta et al., 2013).
O’Koye (2010) conducted research consisting of 14 teacher participants and concluded
that teachers who worked with technology coaches demonstrated a significant increase in
feelings of efficacy towards technology use in classroom instruction. O’Koye quantified
technology coaching as the “number of hours that a teacher has spent with an instructional
technology resource teacher in a face-to-face session” (p. 16). Data was collected through
participant interviews and a three-part survey measuring the participants’ levels of technology
integration, computer efficacy, and time spent with the technology coach. The participants
credited changes in technology implementation in the classroom to support provided from the
technology coach.
In a similar study, Blackmon (2013) suggested that school district technology
professional development based on the single-day model is least likely to result in technology
integration in classroom instruction. A total of 230 middle school teachers were given a survey
called Training Methods for Learning Instructional Technology, which collected data on
teachers’ demographics and their perceptions of professional development for learning classroom
instructional technology. The instrument consisted of 12 questions referencing nine professional
development methods, and teachers were asked to rate each method on a five-point scale. Of all
nine methods, the one perceived to be most effective was peer support or mentoring.
50
Additional research suggested that these perceptions correlate with reality, and
importantly, that the benefits of coaching or mentoring are ultimately felt by students. Hayden et
al. (2011) conducted a similar study using a structured professional development program called
the Investigation for Quality Understanding and Engagement for Students and Teachers
(iQUEST). This program, which included a mentor, was provided to educators for the purpose
of strengthening their abilities and comfort with technology integration in classroom instruction
to enhance science lessons for students. The resulting report stated that student performance was
positively affected by teachers’ professional development, resulting in significant gains
throughout the school year (Hayden et al., 2011).
Despite the apparent benefits, many schools have not implemented the mentoring or
coaching technology professional development model. Criticism of the mentoring or coaching
professional development model centers on the requirement of significant school resources, as
well as on the fact that it provides unrealistic compensation for the mentor or coach (Chuang,
Thompson, & Schmidt, 2003; Machado & Chung, 2015). However, as discussed earlier, a
possible solution to reduce the depletion of school resources resulting from mentoring or
coaching is to include students in technology professional development. Because students
demonstrate a strong use and knowledge of technology, they can support teacher technology use
during instruction (Bajt, 2011; Gu et al., 2013), and some organizations such as GenYes promote
student-led technology support in schools, especially those without expert technology integration
personnel (McLeod & Richardson, 2013).
Training and workshops. Perhaps because of the criticisms associated with mentoring
or coaching models, many districts continue to incorporate the training or workshop model. In
the training or workshop model, technology is discussed and modeled, and/or participants are
51
shown how to use a specific device, program, or software. The specific structure of the training
may vary, but single-day technology professional development in order to meet the needs of
teachers is common (Borthwick & Pierson, 2008; Dede et al., 2009; Potter & Rockinson-
Szapkiw, 2012). However, research has not supported this model as an effective way to
implement professional development because studies have indicated that very little change in
regards to the use of technology in classroom instruction results from it (Blackmon, 2013;
Lutrick & Szabo, 2012; Kesson & Henderson, 2010). In Blackmon’s study, the sampled teachers
deemed several professional development methods ineffective. Among them were non-credit
workshops provided by the school district or an outside consultant, drop-in clinics or open labs,
independent, online help, and summer institutes consisting of weeklong training during the
summer (Blackmon, 2013). Despite varying widely in form, each involved a one-time training
without any in-classroom support to aid teachers in applying learning to the instruction of
students.
Total consensus eludes the literature regarding the ineffectiveness of one-time
professional development trainings. Lau and Yuen (2013) emphasized the importance of
training to promote technology use in the classroom through the findings of their study with a
sample of 90 secondary school teachers in Hong Kong who volunteered to join a technology
professional development workshop. The participants attended five three-hour workshops
emphasizing content, focus, active learning, coherence, duration, and collective participation. At
the end of each one, participants were asked to complete an evaluation of the session and their
attitudes toward technology use. At the end of the first session, demographic data was also
collected, and at the end of the fifth session, an additional questionnaire about the actual use of
technology was administered. Results indicated that the participants generally increased their
52
perceived efficacy in using technology to teach, as well as their belief in using technology to aid
in teaching.
Overall, introducing technology in classroom instruction was said to aid students’
education in general; however, it is important to note that two key limitations to this study exist.
First, participants were selected from a group of teachers who had elected to take part in an
extended workshop; therefore, it is possible that their perceptions of technology were already
very positive, and their attitudes may have influenced responses to the survey questions. Second,
the participants were asked to forecast their future use of technology, and their predictions,
perhaps because of the positive attitudes they brought with them to the training, may have been
influenced by their apparent optimism. More research is needed to determine to what extent
these perceptions correspond with reality.
Increased access to technology. Some research has suggested that increasing teacher
integration of technology may be achieved simply by giving them more access to it. In a cross-
cultural study, researchers compared American and Japanese elementary school teachers’
perceptions on technology use in classroom instruction (Kusano et al., 2013). A group of 99
teachers from Utah and 67 teachers from Hokkaido, Japan, were recruited. The age of the
American teachers ranged from 22 to 57 years, with generally 6 to 10 years of teaching
experience, while the majority of the Japanese teachers were 22 to 30 years old and had fewer
than five years of teaching experience. The Teachers’ Technology Attitudes survey by Holden
and Rada (2011)—with subscales on perceived ease of use and usability, perceived usefulness,
and attitudes toward using technology derived from TAM—was the instrument used in the study.
Demographic data, availability of technology, and frequency of technology use were also taken
into account. Results revealed that the American teachers were significantly more positive in all
53
areas and had more access—and thus more frequent use of technology—than their Japanese
counterparts. As such, it appeared that access to technology prompted its use.
Summary
Despite the increase in technology professional development provided to teachers,
teachers are still struggling with integrating the ever-changing technology of the 21st century into
classroom instruction. Teachers have reported that they are not comfortable with incorporating
technology due to a lack of skills and training, resulting in a need for more effective technology
professional development. Teachers have also reported that traditional professional development
consisting of single-day instruction was not effective. Technology professional development is a
key component in increasing teacher technology acceptance and integration in classroom
instruction, but professional development has rarely resulted in these outcomes.
This descriptive case study was needed to determine if an elementary student-supported
professional development model resulted in teacher technology acceptance and integration in
classroom instruction. This chapter included a discussion of the TAM as the theoretical
framework for this study, as well as empirical research related to technology professional
development, professional development, students and technology and a discussion focused on
Generation Y and Generation Z students.
54
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Overview
The purpose of this descriptive case study was to study teachers’ technology acceptance
and classroom integration in the context of a student-supported professional development model.
Miller (2002) concluded that teachers see a need for students to participate in technology
professional development activities. Five elementary teachers located in the southern part of the
United States who participated in a student-supported professional development model during
the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 school years as part of a district technology integration rollout plan
served as participants in this study. In addition, two administrators who observed student-
supported technology professional development at least three times during the 2013-14 and/or
2014-15 school year were participants in this study. A survey, open-ended face-to-face
interview questions, and archival data consisting of classroom observations conducted yearly
between 2013 and 2015 as part of program evaluation were used to collect data. The research
design, research questions, setting, participants, data collection methods, and data analysis are
explained in this chapter.
Design
A descriptive case study was selected as the research method because it is open ended
and allows for an in-depth understanding of what is being studied (Creswell, 2013; Merriam,
2002). The result of qualitative research is an understanding of a complex issue and can extend
experiences or add strength to what is already known (Shen, 2009). The focus of this study was
to promote an understanding of the complicated intersections between teachers’ technology
acceptance and classroom integration in context to a student-supported professional development
model.
55
This study method was selected due to the fact that it allows for the research to focus on
multiple perspectives (Creswell, 2013). A case study is used when an investigation and a holistic
view are needed, and it requires the researcher to see and then measure the data collected (Feagin
et al., 1991; Stake, 1995). During this case study, I took on a more personal and connected role,
thus providing an in-depth understanding of participant perspectives (Stake, 1995).
Creswell (2013) stated that descriptive case studies uncover themes and provide rich
descriptions of the topic being studied. The goal of a descriptive case study is to document all of
the particulars, thus providing specific details and often answering numerous questions,
specifically “how” (Merriam 2009; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2013). The
skills of asking good questions, actively listening, adapting, displaying knowledge of topic
studying, and maintaining objectivity during data collection are necessary for me, as a
descriptive case study researcher, to implement (Yin, 2013).
This descriptive case study developed an understanding of an intervention: student-
supported professional development model as it pertains to a real-life context, teachers’
technology acceptance and classroom integration (Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Miles &
Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2013). Research on this topic at an elementary school level
did not exist when I conducted the review of the literature; therefore, the use of a descriptive case
study provided a deeper understanding of experiences leading to patterns and themes in data
(Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009; Yin, 2013). A case study consists of evidence conducted from
six possible primary resources: documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observations,
participant observations, and physical artifacts (Yin, 2013). The case study being conducted
dictates which methods will be used to develop an understanding of the phenomenon being
studied. Not all of the six primary resources of evidence need to be utilized in every case study.
56
However, it is important to ensure that there are multiple sources in order to guarantee that the
reliability of the data is established. This is a process known as triangulation (Stake, 1995; Yin,
2013).
Triangulation was ensured through teacher face-to-face interviews (Appendix A),
administrator face-to-face open-ended interviews (Appendix B), a survey (Appendix C), and
archival data consisting of observations conducted yearly during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school
year as part of program evaluation. Three of the most common types of data collection used in
technology and industrial education studies are observations, interviews, and document analysis,
which correspond to the data collection methods that were employed in this descriptive case
study (Evanciew & Rojewski, 1999; Foster & Wright, 2001).
Yin (2013) stated that qualitative data analysis includes an in-depth evaluation of
research, which leads to data reduction and tabulation. This descriptive case study followed the
process of data being coded, resulting in categories that led to themes (Saldaña, 2013). The
specific process for this descriptive case study involved Yin’s (2011) five-phased cycle. The
following occurred throughout the compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting, and
concluding phases: (a) organize data, including transcribing and saving it, (b) upload into
NVivo™ software, (c) open coding consisting of items, sentences, words and long passages were
grouped and sequenced, (d) categories resulted in nodes, then (e) themes (Yin, 2013). Due to the
projection of vast amounts of narrative text, NVivo™ data analysis software was used to organize
codes and categories. Open-ended interview data and archival data consisting of observations
collected yearly during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school year as part of program evaluation was
entered into the software.
57
Research Questions
Three research questions for this descriptive case study are as follows:
RQ 1: How will the integration of a student-supported professional development model
impact teachers’ perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intent to use technology
in classroom instruction?
RQ 2: How will the integration of a student-supported professional development model
impact teachers’ actual use of technology in classroom instruction?
RQ 3: What evidence suggests that student-supported professional development for
technology is responsible for teachers’ technology integration into classroom instruction?
Setting
This study was conducted at an elementary school located in the southern part of the
United States. Research supports that teaching styles vary within a single school district is
greater than across school districts (Sawchuk, 2008). Only one elementary school is present in
the district where this study occurred. The district hired me as the instructional technology
director for the district in August of 2013. My job was to focus on facilitating instruction and
supporting the tools teachers need to implement technology into classroom instruction and
curricula. Since my responsibilities also included creating and implementing a district-wide
technology integration rollout plan, I conducted all professional development sessions and
collected archival data consisting of classroom observations conducted yearly during the 2013-
14 and 2014-15 school year as part of program evaluation. In order to control for researcher bias
that can occur in qualitative data collection such as with observations, I used a specific template
modeled after Creswell (2008) that allowed me to focus primarily on what I saw, recording what
I heard verbatim, and what was occurring in terms of classroom technology integration. Notes
58
were immediately recorded in a reflective journal (Appendix J) as a tool to ensure that all
recorded material was free of my personal bias.
The district that this elementary school belongs to implemented a one-to-one laptop
initiative in the 2013-14 academic year, resulting in all students in grades three through 12
having access to a laptop by the beginning of the 2014-15 school year. In addition, the school’s
kindergarten through fifth-grade classrooms had access to three iPad™ carts containing 25
devices each and two computer labs with 25 devices available to be checked out by teachers for
classroom use. Each teacher had an iPad™ and either a laptop or desktop computer. Weekly
computer classes consisting of typing, login instruction, Google™ applications, other basic skills,
and iPad™ fundamentals were also provided to all students. This site was deemed appropriate for
the study because it benefitted from a district-wide technology integration initiative, and was in
the process of incorporating technology into classroom instruction and curricula, as well as
included students in technology professional development during the 2013-14 and 2014-15
school year. In conclusion, this particular school was an ideal location to examine the utility of
this type of professional development, as well as to support an area that the leadership in the
district was focusing on improving.
The subject school had an enrollment of 458 students, the demographics of which were
95% Caucasian, 2% Hispanic, 1.5% African-American, 1.3% Native American, and 0.2% Asian.
Of those students, 46% qualified for free and reduced-cost lunch. The school averaged a 96%
daily attendance rate. The student to teacher classroom ratio was 17:1. The average number of
years of teaching experience was 14.7, and 60.7% of the teachers had a master’s degree or
higher. The average teaching salary in the district was $42,665.
59
Participants
Participants for this study were selected using purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2013),
which involved selection based on a specific set of criterion (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992).
Purposive sampling remains a technique commonly used for qualitative studies that focus on the
inclusion criteria for its sample (Barratt, Ferris, & Lenton, 2014). Purposive sampling was used
for this study, as I included only teachers who received student-supported technology
professional development in either the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 academic school years with
student support provided by me for at least nine, 45-minute sessions or administrators who
observed student-supported technology professional development at least three times in the
2013-14 and/or 2014-15 school years. In the sample, there were variations between teacher
technology experience, number of years teaching, previous professional experience, and college
degree.
Demographics data demonstrated that all of the teacher participants were female. One
administrator was male, and the other was female. Six of the participants identified themselves
as Caucasian, while one identified herself as Hispanic. The range in numbers of years teaching
spanned from eight to 25, resulting in an average of 14.4 years. Two teachers had their
bachelor’s degree in education, but both were currently working on their master’s degree in
education. The other three teachers had their master’s degree in an educational field. Both of
the administrator candidates had their master’s degree, while the male participant worked on
achieving an additional master’s degree. The administrators had an average of 17 years,
experience ranging from classroom teaching to administration positions. Each participant was
provided with a pseudonym to protect confidentiality.
60
Studies such as this one that use more than one data collection method require a smaller
number of participants (Lee, Woo, & Mackenzie, 2002); while Yin (2013) stated that there
should be more than five. This descriptive case study followed Yin’s (2013) guidelines in
reference to the minimum number of participants needed to gain a clear understanding of
teachers’ technology acceptance and classroom integration in context to a student-supported
professional development model. Additionally, Patton (2002) discussed the importance of
ensuring selection of participants was derived from their ability to provide information that is
detailed. Therefore, five participants who participated in student-supported technology
professional development during the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 school years and two participants
who observed student-supported technology professional development during the 2013-14 and/or
2014-15 school years were utilized in this case study.
As Yin (2013) discussed the minimum number of a sample size, researchers such as
Lincoln and Guba (1985) stated that sample size is derived from collected information until
saturation occurs. Creswell (2013) explained that data saturation occurs when no new themes
emerge. Nineteen participants were contacted for participation in this descriptive case study, as
they met the criterion. Only seven participants agreed to be part of this study. Seeking
participation from additional participants was not necessary, as data saturation occurred after
data was collected from five. Data was collected from the two other participants, but no new
data was presented; thus, saturation was achieved. Teachers’ technology acceptance and
integration was examined through rich, in-depth details provided by participants (Patton, 2002).
Procedures
Liberty University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (Appendix D) was
obtained prior to data collection and analysis. Data collection began with me e-mailing a letter
61
inviting teachers and administrators who meet the sampling criteria to join the study (Appendix
E), along with the Informed Consent (Appendix F). The e-mail explained that participation in
the study was optional and that the consent for participation form needed to be completed and
returned via e-mail or in person within two weeks.
When the Informed Consent forms (Appendix F) were obtained, I e-mailed the survey
(Appendix C) to teachers because a nonthreatening and comfortable environment occurs when
data are collected through the Internet (Nicholas et al., 2010). After teachers returned the
completed survey, an e-mail was sent to coordinate the face-to-face, open-ended interviews
(Appendix A), which occurred in each participant’s respective classrooms and without students
present. After administrators returned their Informed Consent (Appendix F), an e-mail was sent
to establish a mutual time in which the participant and myself could conduct the open-ended,
face-to-face interview (Appendix B) in their office.
A panel of experts in the field of education consisting of the Assistant Superintendent,
Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Executive Director of Elementary Education, and
Technology Director reviewed the teacher interview questions (Appendix B). Feedback
encompassed ensuring that participants were provided with the definition of student-supported
professional development prior to answering questions. Additional feedback referenced the need
to clarify whether the word “enjoy” in question four means “comfortable” or “happy” in
reference to technology usage. As a result, the word “enjoy” was changed to address comfort
level. Upon completion of interview transcriptions, each participant was provided with the
chance to member-check their interviews, review findings, and provide feedback.
After administrator’s Informed Consents (Appendix F) were obtained, I arranged the
face-to-face open-ended interviews (Appendix B). A panel of experts in the field of education
62
consisting of a college Education Professor, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Principal,
and Teacher reviewed the interview questions. Feedback encompassed eliminating question
eight because it was very similar to question seven in reference to no new information will be
gathered. As a result, question seven was reworded and question eight was eliminated. Upon
completion of interview transcriptions, each administrator was provided with the chance to
member-check their interviews. In addition, each participant was also encouraged to review
findings and provide feedback.
Professional development was organized and structured, and each session lasted 45
minutes (Appendix G). Topic selection was based on the district’s technology vision and goals.
Teachers and their respective students were provided with instruction on how to integrate
technology in the classroom and curriculum. Additionally, they were given hands-on instruction
on a specific technology task (Appendix G).
The Researcher's Role
I played an active role throughout this qualitative research study because as the
researcher, I was the primary instrument (Saldaña, 2013). Moreover, at the time of student-
supported professional development integration, I was an employee in the school district where
this qualitative research study occurred. Specifically, I was the district instructional technology
director for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic school years; therefore, worked closely with
instructional technology in the school where the study took place. However, I was not an
administrator in the district nor had any direct influence on participant job performance, salary,
retention, or hiring. My job was to focus on facilitating technology integration into classroom
instruction and curriculum.
63
Data Collection
Data was collected from three sources for validation through triangulation (Gall, Gall, &
Borg, 2007; Yin, 2013). These sources included teacher face-to-face interviews (Appendix A),
administrator face-to-face interviews (Appendix B), a survey (Appendix C), and archival data
consisting of observations that were conducted yearly during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school
years as part of program evaluation. Collection encompassed three principles: (a) multiple
sources of data were used; (b) a case study database was created; and (c) a chain of evidence was
maintained (Yin, 2013).
Survey
The majority of studies conducted in the field of education accessing the TAM have been
conducted at a college level and utilize a quantitative methodology (Wolk, 2009; Wu, 2009).
These studies have focused on the use of the Internet, online shopping, usability of technology,
and course websites (Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Fusilier & Durlabhji, 2005; Gefen et al.,
2003; Jiang et al., 2000; Klopping & McKinney, 2004; Lederer, Maupin, Sena, & Zhuang, 2000;
Selim, 2003; Wolk, 2009).
The survey used in this descriptive case study was developed to study teachers’
technology acceptance and classroom integration in context of a student-supported professional
development model and was based on research by Davis et al. (1989). Permission to modify
Davis’ (1989) survey was obtained (Appendix H). Multiple educational studies have modified
the survey based on the topic as a tool to ensure validity (Alharbi & Drew, 2014; Shroff, Deneed,
& Ng, 2011; Smarkola, 2008; Timothy, 2009). Smarkola (2008) discussed that the TAM data
collection instruments are often modified to address the type of technology being targeted.
64
The survey (Appendix C) consists of 23 questions using a 5-point Likert-scale, where 5
represents strongly agree and 1 represents strongly disagree. I administered the survey
(Appendix C) online. Stoltzfus (2005) indicated than an online survey/questionnaire is both a
valid and a reliable survey instrument. A sample survey (Appendix C) question was: Using the
Internet in my classroom can increase my productivity. Other questions focus on user
acceptance such as: I expect my use of the Internet in my classroom instruction to continue in the
future.
This descriptive case study furthered research in the field of education because it was
unknown if teachers’ technology acceptance and integration in context to a student-supported
professional development model would be beneficial. The validity of the survey’s assessing
TAM has been tested in numerous research studies focusing on the ability to predict a person’s
acceptance of technology (Ma & Liu, 2005; Mahmood et al., 2001; Moon & Kim, 2001; Roca &
Gagné, 2008; Tai & Ting, 2011; Wang et al., 2010). More than a decade of research supports the
TAM surveys as being robust and powerful tools in determining user acceptance of technology
based on perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and intent to use, which lead to actual use
(Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Gefen et al., 2003; Jiang et al., 2000; Klopping & McKinney,
2004; Selim, 2003; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000; Wolk, 2009).
The TAM is primarily used for conducting quantitative research (Wu, 2009). The lack of
qualitative TAM studies focusing on technology professional development and the TAM
construct actual use were the basis for this descriptive case study. Since the majority of research
in the literature utilizing the TAM does not measure actual use, an interview for teachers
(Appendix A) and administrators (Appendix B) was used to gauge genuine use (Chang et al.,
65
2012; Roca & Gagné, 2008; Wang et al., 2010). The survey was administered after IRB approval
and before face-to-face open-ended interviews occurred.
Face-to-Face Interviews
Open-ended, face-to-face interviews conducted with teachers (Appendix A) and
administrators (Appendix B) provided a good way to increase informational sources and data
gathering (Yin, 2013). I had some prepared, structured interview questions that were reviewed
by a panel of experts in the field of education, but allowed participants’ the opportunity to freely
provide personal experiences (Farber, 2006; Yin, 2013). I made audio recordings of all
interviews using both a laptop computer and a backup iPad™ app, RecorderApp™, in case
technical difficulties occurred. After interviews were completed, I transcribed them for coding
purposes. Interviews were transcribed word for word, which involved a tedious systematic
review process. Transcriptions included identifying and recording nonverbal communication
including facial expressions that I noted during each interview (Yin, 2011). Due to breach of
confidentiality expressed in two interviews, identifiable information, such as student names and
location of the site, were removed from the written and audio transcripts (Yin, 2011).
Member checking, which ensures that all responses are a direct reflection of each
participant and not the researcher, occurred throughout data collection and analysis (Creswell,
2013; Yin, 2013). Member checks occurred twice in this study. This included after interviews
were transcribed and then again to review the findings. Yin (2002) discusses the importance of
having a case study database and chain of evidence resulting in a detailed analysis, which leads
to validation of “case study conclusions” (Yin, 2009, p.83). Data sources were uploaded into
NVivo™, which is software used for data compiling. In addition, I identified codes and used
66
them to categorize data for theme identification. Four themes were used to answer all research
questions.
All teacher interviews were conducted in the participants’ classrooms without students
present. The two administrator interviews occurred in each of the participants’ office. The
length of each interview depended on the participants’ responses, but lasted about 20 minutes.
By asking participants to explain answers, provide examples, and describe personal experiences,
I was able to obtain in-depth information throughout the interview (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). A
written interview script was read to each teacher (Appendix A) and administrator (Appendix B)
during the interview and prior to the questioning (Emory, 1985).
The questions selected for teacher (Appendix A) and administrator interviews (Appendix
B) were based on the research examined in the literature review and the TAM (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 2000; Davis, 1989; Kiraz & Qzdemir, 2006; Teo, 2009). Interview questions were
designed to focus on the participants’ experiences, beliefs, and feelings about a student-
supported professional development model as it related to the components of the TAM in order
to study teachers’ technology acceptance and classroom integration (Welman & Kruger, 1999).
The questions are provided below and were piloted by teachers after IRB approval and prior to
interviews.
Face-to-Face, Open-Ended Interview Questions for Teacher Participants
1. Please describe your teaching experience, beginning with the number of years you
have taught.
2. Please describe your educational background, technology training and
implementation prior to participation in student-supported professional
development.
67
3. What impact has student-supported professional development had on your ability
to use technology in your classroom?
4. Please describe your comfort level using technology in classroom instruction and
if this changed after participating in student-supported professional development.
5. How often do you use technology during classroom instruction to do a task when
there is a feature to help you perform it?
6. To what extent has student-supported professional development impacted your
future use of technology classroom instruction?
7. To what extent has student-supported professional development impacted time
management while using technology in your classroom instruction?
8. To what extent has participating in student-supported professional development
provided you with a great deal of experience using technology during classroom
instruction?
Throughout the interview, teacher participants were encouraged to elaborate on their
answers and move on to the next question. Question 1 obtained background knowledge of each
participant. Question 2 gained an understanding of teacher educational background to include
technology training and integration prior to participation in the study (DeNisco, 2014).
Teachers’ perceptions of technology usage being effortless was studied through Questions 3, 5,
and 8 (Davis, 1989; Knight, 2012; Timothy, 2009). The perceptions that teachers have towards
the benefits of using technology at work were addressed in Questions 3, 5, 7, and 8 (Davis et al.,
1989; Knight, 2012; Timothy, 2009). Teachers intent of use with regard to technology applied to
Question 3 (Davis, 1989). Teachers’ technology actual use was associated with Questions 3, 4,
68
6, and 8 (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980; Hu et al., 2003; Knight, 2012;
Wallace & Sheetz, 2014).
Administrators were asked the following face-to-face open-ended interview questions as
a means to gauge their perceptions.
Face-to-Face, Open-Ended Interview Questions for Administrator Participants
1. Please describe your professional and educational background.
2. Please describe technology usage throughout the elementary school prior to student-
supported technology professional development that started in the 2013-14 academic
school year.
3. Please describe your perceptions of teacher comfort level using technology in
classroom instruction and if this changed after participating in student-supported
professional development that began in the 2013-14 academic school year.
4. Please describe your perceptions of student comfort level using technology in
classroom instruction and if this changed after participating in student-supported
professional development that began in the 2013-14 academic school year.
5. Please describe how often and at what level you observe technology usage during
classroom instruction in a classroom where student-supported technology
professional development occurred?
6. Please describe how often and at what level you observe technology usage during
classroom instruction in a classroom where student-supported technology
professional development was not conducted?
7. To what extent has student-supported professional development impacted teacher
technology acceptance and integration into classroom instruction?
69
During the interview, administrator participants provided detailed and in-depth answers.
Obtaining background information of each participation was essential; therefore, Question 1 was
asked. Question 2 addressed technology integration and usage prior to the teacher participants
participating in student-supported technology professional development. Administrators’
perceptions of teachers’ and students’ comfort level while using technology were studied through
Questions 3 and 4 (Davis, 1989). Administrator’ perceptions addressing the frequency and level
of rigor pre-and post-student-supported technology professional development was addressed in
Questions 5 and 6 (Davis et al., 1989). Observations made by administrator participants of
teachers’ technology acceptance and integration into classroom instruction post student-
supported technology professional development was asked in Question 7 (Davis, 1989; Davis et
al., 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980; Hu et al., 2003; Knight, 2012; Wallace & Sheetz, 2014).
Archival Data: Observations
The final data collection tool was archival data consisting of observations conducted
yearly as part of program evaluation during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school year. Observations
are the process that involves gathering open-ended information firsthand through watching
people and places in the site where research takes place (Creswell, 2008). The observer can use
all five senses to note phenomena during observations, which the researcher records for scientific
purposes (Angrosino, 2007). Good qualitative observers are able to change roles from one form
of observation to another, which did not occur in this study (Creswell, 2013; Spradley, 1980).
Creswell (2013) identified four types of observations: (a) complete participant, (b)
participant as observer, (c) nonparticipant/observer as participant, and (d) complete observer.
The archival data consisting of observations conducted yearly during the 2013-14 and 2014-15
school year as part of program evaluation implemented the nonparticipant as observer method of
70
observation. Despite the fact that I conducted all professional development sessions during the
2013-14 and 2014-15 school year as part of a district technology integration rollout plan,
observations occurred at a separate time where I was observing and not participating. My role as
a nonparticipant observer was to gain subjective data without interacting with participants
(Creswell, 2013). This allowed me to focus on what was occurring in the classroom.
Observations were unscheduled and occurred three times in 2013-14 and then again three
more times during the 2014-15 school year. Observations occurred in October, January, and
March each year while teachers were conducting instruction. Observations were recorded using
a template (Appendix I) modeled after the example and process provided by Creswell (2008).
The template (Appendix I) included recording aspects specifically focusing on technology
integration, application and operation, teacher interactions and routines, what the students were
doing, what was heard verbatim, and the physical setting. The results were uploaded on the
district teacher-shared drive and included on the yearly technology report provided to the school
board, which was written by me using specific individual codes for each teacher. Therefore, the
documents contained no specific identifiable information.
Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis for case studies is a spiral or iterative process that involves
examining, categorizing, tabulating and/or recombining evidence to address the original
propositions of case study (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2013), with the overall goal being to find the
answer to the research questions (Merriam, 2009). The data analysis plan for this descriptive
case study involved looking for themes and trends that were identified throughout the analysis.
Data analysis followed Yin’s (2011) five-phased cycle consisting of compiling, disassembling,
reassembling, interpreting, and concluding. The five-phased cycle included the process of
71
gathering and coding data, which resulted in identifying categories that led to themes (Saldaña,
2013; Yin, 2013). Prior to beginning data analysis, I reread all data collected. I then organized
data including the saving and transcribing of data by participant resulting in individual data
bases, which was then uploaded into NVivo™ software. NVivo™ was used to compile, examine,
and compare archival data consisting of observations conducted yearly during the 2013-14 and
2014-15 school year as part of program evaluation and interviews. In addition, NVivo™ software
strengthened validity and reliability in this case study.
Open coding occurred where I analyzed and connected various items, sentences, words,
and long passages. During open coding, I noticed that many of the Level 1 codes related;
therefore, Level 2 codes emerged (Yin, 2013), such as experience and prior to student-supported
technology. During the first cycle of coding, I identified and labeled codes. The second cycle of
coding involved the sorting and categorizing of data where categories and themes were
developed (Appendix K). This cycle is where I determined relationships among data. NVivo™
software noted the frequency for which a specific code occurred. Coding is the backbone of
descriptive case study analysis because it encompasses the process of developing themes or
dimensions and building detailed descriptions (Creswell, 2013). Coding allowed me to discover
patterns and was used as a method to organize data (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). Each
participant’s data was analyzed individually for themes, and then all results were compared to
identify reoccurring themes.
Saldaña (2013) stated that manual coding is rarely correct the first time completed;
therefore, interview transcripts and archival data consisting of observations conducted yearly
during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school year as part of program evaluation were uploaded into
the NVivo™ data analysis software. I discovered and used four themes that were identified to
72
provide a holistic picture of this descriptive case study. Saldaña (2013) noted that themes are an
outcome of coding.
Back-up files for all data, including transcripts and other documents for review, are
contained in a password-protected thumb drive and stored in a locked file cabinet. Transcripts
were e-mailed to participants through Gmail using DodoShare™, which password protects
electronic documents, so that member checks can occur. Pseudonyms, such as “Mary,” were
assigned to each participant. An understanding of teacher’s perceptions pertaining to technology
and usage behavior was examined using the survey (Appendix C) by reviewing perceived ease of
use, perceived usefulness, and intent to use technology (Davis et al., 1989).
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness is one tool qualitative researchers use to ensure accuracy in qualitative
research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Trustworthiness addresses the following; (a) credibility, (b)
dependability, (c) transferability, and (d) confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In studying
teachers’ acceptance of technology and classroom integration in context to a student-supported
professional development model, I considered all influences, which are explained below in
detail.
Credibility
There are multiple ways to achieve credibility in research. Lincoln and Guba (1985)
discussed credibility in terms of the researcher becoming acquainted with participants and the
setting where research will occur. Since I was a new employee to the district when student-
supported professional development was implemented, I established a relationship by e-mailing a
letter of introduction to all teachers in the district. During the 2013-14 school year, teachers
were allowed to determine whether they wanted to participate in student-supported professional
73
development or if they preferred to participate in the traditional, one-day model. Prior to
integrating the student-supported professional development model with teachers who
volunteered, I met with each teacher individually in order to build familiarity. For added
credibility, I asked participants to review their interview transcripts and findings through
member checking.
Three primary methods ensure trustworthiness in qualitative research: (a) triangulation,
(b) member checking, and (c) auditing. Triangulation of data, member checking, and creating an
audit trail were utilized in this descriptive case study. Another way to achieve credibility is
through triangulation, which will be accomplished by using multiple sources to collect data
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Yin, 2013). Triangulation occurred through the combination of the
survey, interviews conducted with both teacher and administrator participants, and archival data
consisting of classroom observations that were conducted yearly during the 2013-14 and 2014-15
school years as a part of program evaluation. Triangulation consists of data gathered from
numerous sources used as a tool to determine if findings are consistent (Yin, 2013). Researchers
support that analyzing multiple sources of data and converging them is a strong validation
strategy implemented in qualitative research (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2013).
Member checks and peer debriefing were implemented for quality-assurance. Member
checks were conducted through data collection to ensure accuracy as a means of confirming that
written text and observations were a direct reflection of each participant (Yin, 2011).
Additionally, member checks were used to gain feedback and insight from all participants. Peer
reviews were received in a written form and supported the conclusions of this study.
74
Dependability and Confirmability
Saldaña (2013) noted that when something is dependable, it will yield similar if not the
same results when duplicated. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested creating an audit trail to
ensure dependability. The audit trail that was used in this descriptive case study included notes
that were recorded on the password-protected thumb drive and password-protected computer
used for research. Notes included what I, as the researcher, saw, heard, observed, and did
(Brinkmann, 2012). I also created an audit trail consisting of notes created while conducting all
professional development sessions and archival data consisting of observations conducted yearly
as part of program evaluation in both the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years. Dependability was
achieved during data analysis. Manual errors were eliminated by uploading the face-to-face
interviews and archival data consisting of observations conducted yearly during the 2013-14 and
2014-15 school years as part of program evaluation into NVivo™ software.
Confirmability ensures that the results of this descriptive case study were supported by
the participants and occurred independently of the researcher (Brinkmann, 2012). To achieve the
accuracy stressed by Yin (2013) as being important, I remained focused on data collection
methods and analysis. Furthermore, I conducted an audit trail (which Brinkmann [2012] advises
doing as a means to address confirmability), outlining data collection and data analysis
throughout this descriptive case study. Data was uploaded into the NVivo™ software as a means
of ensuring that manual data analysis errors are not made and then disassembled and
reassembled. A peer review of data occurred with the main goal being “given the evidence
present, is there consensus in the interpretations?” (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Walker, 2012, p.
74).
75
Confirmability was also achieved through the use of an external auditor. An external
auditor was used because I wanted someone not connected with the research to deduce the
conclusions reached from data (Creswell, 2013). Additionally, an external auditor was free of
bias or expectation, thus they should depict inaccurate conclusions.
Transferability
Yin (2013) stated that the outcomes of one context should be transferable to other
contexts or settings. I provided rich descriptions of participants, setting, sample size, data
collection, and actual data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data collection methods were transferable
because they involved using a survey and face-to-face interview questions that are based on
research conducted by Davis et al. (1989). Direct quotes that were collected through archival
data consisting of observations conducted yearly during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as
part of program evaluation had an impact on this descriptive case study. In addition, direct
quotes collected during the face-to-face interviews of both teacher and administrators also had a
direct impact on this descriptive case study by providing an in-depth understanding of teacher
technology acceptance and classroom integration.
Ethical Considerations
The data collected for this case study is stored in a well-secured location: a locked file
cabinet that was located off-site from where the research occurred and accessible only by me.
All electronic files are password protected along with being saved on a password-protected
thumb drive, which was secured in the locked file cabinet. It was also my responsibility to
protect participants’ identities in this study by providing each with a pseudonym, which was
selected from the Social Security’s top 100 names of all time. A list of participants and their
pseudonyms was placed in the same locked file cabinet. Once pseudonyms replaced actual
76
names of participants and data was recorded, all materials with identifiable names was changed
to reflect the pseudonyms. I am not a direct supervisor to any of the participants. Participation
in the study was optional, and participants knew that their data may be permitted or denied at
will and without consequence.
Summary
This chapter consists of providing support for the methods used in this study. A
descriptive case study was selected because I examined a real-life context answering the question
of “how” (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2013). The purpose of this descriptive case study was to examine
teachers’ technology acceptance and classroom integration in context to a student-supported
professional development model. The literature reviewed provided a foundation for this
descriptive case study and was used as a tool to explain data collection and data analysis. The
details of participants’ selection, my role as the researcher, and a description of the setting were
discussed in this chapter. Teacher perceptions of how technology professional development with
elementary students’ support did or did not increase teacher technology acceptance and
integration in classroom instruction were examined. The results gained from this descriptive
case study may help school districts determine if elementary students should be included in
technology professional development.
77
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Overview
The purpose of this descriptive case study was to examine teacher technology acceptance
and integration into classroom instruction in context to student-supported technology
professional development. The study centered on the importance of technology integration and
how technology plays a role in the classroom. Miller (2002) concluded that teachers see a need
for students to participate in technology professional development activities. Elementary
teachers located in the southern part of the United States who participated in a student-supported
professional development model during the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 school years as part of a
district technology roll-out program served as participants in this study. Themes presented in
this chapter were derived from data collected from a survey, face-to-face open-ended interviews,
and observations conducted in 2013-14 and 2014-15 as part of program evaluation. Further, this
chapter encompasses the present findings and analysis of the following research questions:
Research Question 1: How will the integration of a student-supported professional
development model impact teachers’ perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intent to
use technology in classroom instruction?
Research Question 2: How will the integration of a student-supported professional
development model impact teachers’ actual use of technology in classroom instruction?
Research Question 3: What evidence suggests that student-supported professional
development for technology is responsible for the encouragement of teachers’ technology
integration into classroom instruction?
78
Participants
Purposeful sampling with the following criterion was used for participation in this
descriptive case study: (a) must be 18 years of age, (b) an elementary teacher who participated in
student-supported technology professional development in either the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15
school years provided by me, or (c) an administrator who observed student-supported technology
professional development at least three times during either the 2013-14 and/or the 2014-15
school years provided by me. Pseudonyms were used throughout this descriptive case study to
protect the confidentiality of all participants.
Five teachers and two administrators returned their consent to participate in this study,
which meets the criteria set forth for a case study sample (Englander, 2012; Yin, 2013).
Additional attempts to encourage participation were made via e-mail, but proved futile.
Originally, my goal was to obtain consent from 19 candidates; however, only seven agreed to
participate. Although I was unable to obtain additional participants, this study includes a diverse
group in terms of technology experience, usage, and classroom integration. Data saturation
occurred after data was collected from five participants. Data was collected from the two other
participants, but no new data was presented; therefore, I was able to obtain data saturation.
All teacher participants were Caucasian females. The average number of teaching years
was 14.4, with three teachers having been in the classroom less than 10 years and two teachers
more than 20 years. Three participants had their master’s degrees, while two were currently
enrolled in master’s degree programs. One administrator was male, while the other was female.
Table 1, below, provides specific details about all participants.
79
Table 1
Teacher and Administrator Participants Name Race Education Years of
Educational Experience
Role
Mary Caucasian MA 25 Teacher
Patricia Caucasian MA 22 Teacher
Margaret Caucasian MA 8 Teacher
Elizabeth Caucasian BA + 8 Teacher
Linda Caucasian BA + 9 Teacher
Barbara Caucasian Ed.S 8 Administrator
James Caucasian MA 22 Administrator
Mary
Mary had been an elementary teacher in the southern part of the United States for 25
years, the first seven of which were spent in in special education and the remainder in first grade.
She stated, “I always wanted to be a teacher.” Mary discussed growing up in a home where
education was highly valued; both her mother and father had obtained two-year college degrees.
Mary herself had a master’s degree and had been raised in the community in which she taught.
When first approached about integrating technology into classroom instruction, she
stated, “I hardly know how to use a computer, but if you will help and it is in the best interests of
my students, then I am willing to give it a try.” Additionally, she stated, “Before we get started, I
need to know how to turn the iPad™ on.” When asked about her experience with technology in
classroom instruction prior to student-supported technology professional development, Mary
admitted, “I would say virtually zero. I honestly didn’t use technology a whole lot before this. I
did use the overhead projector, and that was about it.” She also discussed previous failed
80
attempts at integrating technology into classroom instruction that took place prior to student-
supported technology professional development stating, “We had times when we would have to
go into the computer lab and do a lesson and teach ourselves, by ourselves. I pretty much let the
students play games, that’s all I knew how to do.”
Patricia
Patricia had been an elementary teacher of 22 years in the southern part of the United
States, 14 of which had been spent in a rural school district. She shared, “I love watching kids
grow.” She holds a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction and was not raised in the
community in which she taught.
When first approached about integrating technology into classroom instruction, Patricia
stated, “Well, I am willing to try it, but I do not know where to start,” and added that “a lot of
guidance” would be needed. She primarily used technology for administrative purposes. When
asked whether she’d integrated technology in her classroom prior to this study, Patricia
confessed, “No, not a lot. I have not implemented technology much before this.” She went on to
clarify that she had not used it as much as she would like to. “Prior to this, I had basic
technology skills or understanding,” she said, adding that while she had attended multiple, one-
day technology professional development courses, she had not integrated the content into
classroom instruction.
Margaret
Margaret had been a teacher for eight years, all in a single elementary school district
located in the southern part of the United States. During her career, she taught multiple grades,
both in a departmentalized and non-departmentalized setting, and various subjects. “I really
enjoy teaching,” she said. The community in which she taught is much larger than the one in
81
which she was raised. Having obtained a master’s degree in administration, Margaret’s goal was
to become a school administrator.
When first approached about integrating technology into classroom instruction, she
stated, “Get me the devices I need, and I am ready. I am ready right now.” She also stated, “I
have always tried to use technology in the classroom and at home. I feel confident with
technology. If I do not know how to use something, I feel like I can learn how to do it pretty
easily.” When asked specifically about technology integration prior to student-supported
technology professional development she responded:
Prior to this, my kids did all their math tests online. They did things with their math
website games. They also did mini-lessons to help them. Prior to this, I used technology
in the classroom in a manner that was more teacher-led.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth had spent eight years teaching elementary school in the southern part of the
United States. The entire time, she taught the same grade level at the same school, which was
located within 10 miles of where she was raised. “Teaching children is very enjoyable,” she
said. Elizabeth had enrolled in a master’s degree program, but had not yet decided on the
specific concentration. Prior to becoming a teacher, she worked in the clerical field; therefore,
she had a lot of administration technological skills and knowledge.
When first approached about integrating technology into classroom instruction, she said,
“When are we going to start? I have taught myself most of the technology that I know. I like to
explore and learn things on my own.” Elizabeth also disclosed that she had been able to extend
her educational training in technology through various classes and professional development, but
what she’d learned was rarely integrated into classroom instruction.
82
Linda
Linda, an elementary teacher of nine years in the southern part of the United States, said,
“I love what I do.” Six of those years were spent in a smaller district than where she is now, but
she had been raised in a nearby community that was larger. She was working on her master’s
degree in administration and hoped to one day become an elementary principal. When first
approached about integrating technology into classroom instruction, she stated, “I know how to
use technology. I do need some help with implementing it into my classroom instruction.”
When asked about her technology level and experiences prior to this study, Linda concluded,
“Probably about average; not an expert with it. Not used to using them with the students
though.” However, she discussed that she utilized a lot of technology for personal application.
Barbara
Barbara was an administrator with eight years of experience in teaching and
administration in the southern part of the United States. Additionally, she had observed student-
supported technology professional development at least three times in the 2013-14 and/or 2014-
15 school years. She had a bachelor’s degree in education with a minor in special education and
a specialist degree. Her career consisted of teaching special education, kindergarten, first grade,
and early childhood education. When asked about technology integration in classroom
instruction, she stated, “Student-supported technology professional development has increased
the amount and rigor of technology in the classroom. Technology usage has increased.”
James
James had spent seven years teaching and 15 years working as an administrator in the
southern part of the United States. He had observed student-supported technology professional
development at least three times during the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 school years. Prior to
83
student-supported technology professional development, he noted, “I did not observe the
teachers doing anything with technology. The teachers mainly used the lab like indoor recess.”
After student-supported technology professional development, James noticed a difference in
technology integration into classroom instruction. He stated, “Teachers definitely learned. They
developed much better uses for technology than previously demonstrated.” Regarding recent
technology integration, he stated, “There was one particular activity where students made videos
and did other things where the teachers were impressed that the students could work
independently and exhibit learning and independence, even in kindergarten.”
Results
The three research questions that guided this descriptive case study were answered using
three data sources that consisted of a survey, face-to-face open-ended interviews, and archival
data consisting of observations conducted during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as part
of program evaluation. The TAM survey, which was given prior to the face-to-face, open-ended
interviews, was analyzed as a tool to answer research questions one and two. The survey was
administered online using Survey Monkey™.
All surveys were analyzed (Table 2). The survey (Appendix C) consisted of 23 questions
using a 5-point Likert scale, where 5 represents strongly agree, and 1 represents strongly
disagree. A sample survey (Appendix C) question was: Using the Internet in my classroom can
increase my productivity. Other questions focus on user acceptance such as: I always try to use
the Internet in as many cases or occasions as possible during classroom instruction.
84
Table 2
Technology Acceptance Survey Results Questions Mary Patricia Margaret Elizabeth Linda Average
1 3 3 5 3 4 3.6 2 3 4 5 3 4 3.8 3 3 3 5 3 4 3.6 4 4 3 5 3 3 3.6 5 2 3 4 2 5 3.2 6 4 4 4 2 5 3.8 7 3 3 4 2 5 3.4 8 3 4 4 2 5 3.6 9 3 3 4 2 5 3.4 10 3 3 4 2 4 3.2 11 3 3 4 2 4 3.2 12 5 3 4 2 4 3.6 13 5 3 4 2 4 3.6 14 5 2 1 3 4 3 15 1 3 3 2 2 2.2 16 4 2 3 2 3 2.8 17 5 3 5 3 3 3.8 18 5 4 4 5 5 4.6 19 3 4 3 4 3 3.4 20 1 5 2 5 2 3 21 3 5 3 5 2 3.6 22 3 2 3 1 3 2.4
23 (a) 7 7 12 10 8 8.8 23 (b) 3 4 3 3 6 3.8
The highest overall resulting Likert score on the survey was for question 18, which states:
I expect my use of the Internet in my classroom instruction to continue in the future. Patricia and
Margaret rated this question as a four, while the other teacher participants gave it a five. The
lowest overall participant score addressed question 16, which was: I always try to use the
Internet during classroom instruction to do a task whenever it has a feature to help me perform
it. Patricia and Elizabeth both rated this question with a two, which is somewhat disagree, while
Mary had a four, which is somewhat agree. Elizabeth gave question 22 a one, strongly disagree.
Margaret also stated that she strongly disagreed with question 14, while Mary noted the same
rating for questions 15 and 20. The survey also revealed that the average number of years’
85
participants have used the Internet for personal use is 8.8, while the average number of years that
the Internet has been integrated into classroom instruction is 3.8, which addresses actual use.
Margaret noted that she had used the internet for personal reasons over a 12-year span, but had
only used it in the classroom for three. Linda stated that despite only using the internet for
personal reasons for eight years, she had integrated it into the classroom for six.
Teacher interviews were conducted face-to-face in the participants’ classrooms.
Administrator interviews were conducted face-to-face in their offices. All interviews were
recorded using both a laptop computer and a back-up recording device in case technical
difficulties occurred. Interviews were transcribed by me using Microsoft™ software and then e-
mailed to each participant for confirmation.
Archival data consisting of classroom observations conducted in the 2013-14 and 2014-
15 academic school years as part of program evaluation were retrieved for each teacher
participant. Archival data were originally collected to analyze perceptions of technology usage
and gauge levels of technology integration in classroom instruction as a means of determining
what the school district’s current professional development needs were.
Each teacher participant was observed six times throughout 2013-2014 and 2014-2015
school years (Table 3). All observations occurred in the classroom and focused on technology
integration. At the beginning of an observation conducted March 2014 in Mary’s classroom, she
said to her students, “I am very nervous about doing this without support” and demonstrated
fidgeting behavior. At the conclusion of the lesson, she stated, “That was really easy, and the
students enjoyed it. I enjoyed it! I did not know that I could do that on my own. I am ready to
do more.”
86
Table 3
Archival Data: Classroom Observations Date No Device
Being Used Teacher Using Device
Students Using Device
Students and Teacher
Using Device October 2013 2 1 1 1
January 2014 1
2
1
1
March 2014 0
2
2
1
October 2014 0
1
4
0
January 2015 0
2
3
0
March 2015 0
1
2
2
Upon transcription, observations and interviews were analyzed through NVivo™, which
is qualitative analytic software. Data analysis included Yin’s (2011) five-phased cycle
consisting of compiling, disassembling, reassembling, interpreting, and concluding. The five-
phased cycle included open coding, sorting and categorizing data where categories were
developed, which resulted in themes (Yin, 2011).
Four themes emerged during the analysis of this case study: successful experience with
technology, skill and knowledge development, lack of use prior to intervention/professional
development and evidence of acceptance and integration. All themes occurred multiple times
during both the face-to-face interviews consisting of teacher and administrator cases and archival
data consisting of classroom observations conducted yearly during the 2013-14 and 2014-15
school years as part of program evaluation. The themes were used to answer the three research
questions for this descriptive case study (Table 4).
87
Table 4
Emergent Themes from Research Questions How will the integration of
a student-supported professional development model impact teachers’ perceived ease of use,
perceived usefulness, and intent to use technology in
classroom instruction?
How will the integration of a student-supported
professional development model impact teachers’
actual use of technology in classroom instruction?
What evidence suggests that student-supported
professional development for technology is
responsible for the encouragement of teachers’ technology integration into
classroom instruction? Successful Experience with
Technology Successful Experience with
Technology Successful Experience
with Technology
Skill and Knowledge Development
Skill and Knowledge Development
Lack of Use Prior to
Intervention/Professional Development
Skill and Knowledge
Development
Evidence of Acceptance And Integration
Participants revealed that students included in technology professional development had
the biggest impact on teacher technology acceptance and integration. Mary stated, “I probably
would not be using technology as much as I am if the students had not been included in
professional development. They can do so much more with technology than I ever thought
possible.” Linda concurred, stating, “Student-support has been crucial to my acceptance and
classroom use.” In addition, participants’ acceptance and integration of technology increased as
teachers accepted and understood that they did not have to be technology experts. Participant’s
felt that someone in the classroom would be able to solve any technology issue that arose.
Overall, participants felt as if student-supported technology professional development did
increase teacher technology acceptance and integration. Every teacher participant commented on
their newfound confidence and desire to integrate technology into classroom instruction. All
88
participants discussed the difference in student independence, rigor, and creativity demonstrated
through technology integration in classroom instruction. Further, the participants voiced their
willingness to participate in future student-supported technology professional development based
on the positive impact it has had on their teaching and student learning.
Theme One: Skill and Knowledge Development
Theme one clearly identifies that technology skills need to be better developed to
maximize usage. This relates to the TAM component: perceived ease of use. James suggested
the following regarding student technology skills and knowledge:
In my opinion, the kids have been way more comfortable with technology than the
teachers. The problem was never the kids; the kids were willing to problem solve and
figure it out. The teachers lacked skills and experimentation, and if they would have
been comfortable enough to let the kids figure it out—experiment—it would have been
fine.
Despite noting that student-supported technology professional development increased
teacher acceptance and integration of technology, James also pointed out, “Eventually,
technology integration would have occurred due to student-driven exploration.”
Margaret believed that after receiving student-supported technology professional
development, both teacher and student confidence in utilizing technology improved. She
expressed:
I am very comfortable using technology in my classroom. Well, my kids have progressed
a lot. If you were to have walked in at the beginning of the year and watched them log-
in, it would have taken forever. But now, because they know how to, they can get on the
computer.
89
Classroom observations of Margaret supported this stance. In October 2013 and January 2014,
she employed basic, step-by-step activities that the students followed. In contrast, the third
observation of her, conducted in March 2014, consisted of a student-led activity where students
showcased their technology skills. Regarding her personal progression with technology,
Margaret stated, “I have always tried to use technology in the classroom, and I use it at home.
Prior to this, I had my students play educational games online, which they easily navigated
without my help.” Margaret further supported this by rating question 11 which stated: It is easy
for me to become skillful at using the Internet for classroom instruction, with a four, somewhat
agree.
Margaret also discussed that her acceptance of technology was impacted by fear; she
thought that she had to know everything about technology prior to integrating it into the
classroom. Student technology skills were not considered. She stated:
Prior to student-supported technology professional development, I never thought that I
could learn technology while my students were learning. I always thought that if I were
going to teach them to use something like PowToon’s™, I had to know how to do it
myself first. I learned that I can learn with them, and that it all works out. My kids and I
are able to now work together. If there is something that I do not know how to do, one of
them will know.
Elizabeth shares the sentiment that teachers and students need to acquire technology
skills together to ensure success in technology integration. She said, “I see the need every day
for technology in the classroom. When I use technology with students, I know that one of us will
know how to solve any issues that come up.” She also mentioned that acquiring technology
skills has resulted in her being better prepared; thus, it has been good for her job. “I have found
90
that I have to be more prepared: I need things loaded, I need them up, and I need them ready to
go,” she explained. “That way, I am not hunting for that page or hunting for what I need. I am a
better teacher today then I was before student-supported professional development.” However,
on the survey, Elizabeth noted that she neither agreed or disagreed with question two: Using the
Internet in my classroom can improve my performance. Elizabeth further revealed how
acquiring technology skills and knowledge has changed classroom instruction when she said:
I find that it does actually go quicker, like I said, because I am able to use the iPad™ and
walk around and still project what the students need to see. I am teaching them right
when everybody else learns. I just stop and teach them the level that they need. So, I felt
it has sped up my classroom instruction.
Observations conducted in October 2013 recorded that Elizabeth logged on to her
computer, but it took about 40 seconds for her to turn on the projector and another 70
seconds for her to fumble with the remote while trying to get the image from the
computer to the overhead projector. She moved through the rest of the activity without
any issues arising. During the observation conducted January 2014, Elizabeth and her
students demonstrated technology skills such as logging on and iPad™ fundamentals.
Additionally, she was able to switch between input modes on the overhead projector.
Theme Two: Lack of Use Prior to Intervention/Professional Development
Prior to student-supported technology, there was a limited technology acceptance and its
actual use in the classroom. As observed by James, “We had two computer labs and an iPad™
lab prior to student-supported technology professional development. The teachers were taking
the students to the lab and just letting them play games.” James observed that having a computer
laboratory was helpful for both the teacher and the students:
91
Before student-supported technology professional development, I did not observe the
teachers doing much with technology. There were a few—when I say few, I mean one or
two—that did something like typing; basic skills. I did not see that it was anything that
could not have been done with paper and pencil.
James stated, “Prior to professional development, I rarely saw a teacher use technology other
than using the overhead projector.” He added, “Technology is important in curriculum, but it
was rarely being used before PD.”
Barbara concurred, stating, “Initially there was hardly ever any technology being used.
The carts were sitting there not being used. It was sad.” Regarding the difference in acceptance
and technology integration after student-support, she continued, “Partnering with student-
supported technology professional development has resulted in technology usage during whole
group and small group instruction and throughout many learning activities.”
Observations of Mary conducted in October 2013 and January 2014, prior to student-
support, indicated that she used technology to project a worksheet on the board. Each student
had a copy of the worksheet and reviewed the answers with her. She felt that using the overhead
projector and a document camera were easy tasks for her; thus, that comprised the extent of her
efforts to integrate technology into her classroom.
Patricia described her technology experience thusly: “Prior to this, I had few basic
technology skills. I have taken some technology courses through professional development
classes at a local university, but have not done anything with them. I have not implemented
technology much before this.” In addition, she stated, “Prior to student-supported technology
professional development, I hardly ever used technology. I did use it when I had to.”
92
Despite saying that she had limited technology skills, Patricia implied that she was
willing to integrate technology into classroom instruction if it was beneficial to student learning.
Patricia noted this on the survey as she rated question six: I find the Internet useful in my
teaching, with a four, which is somewhat agree. During classroom observations of her
conducted in October 2013 and January 2014, technology integration was not occurring. Both
observations consisted of students merely copying notes that Patricia wrote on the board. All
observations of her conducted after student-support included technology integration.
Patricia’s familiarity with technology and lack of experience working with students and
technology is similar to Linda’s. In her interview, Linda discussed that she had average
technology skills in terms of personal use, but no experience using it in the classroom with
students. During observations of Linda conducted in October 2013, prior to student-supported
technology professional development, technology integration did not occur. Linda demonstrated
how to solve math problems on the whiteboard. Some students listened, while three were off
task. Thus, I inferred that prior to student-supported technology professional development, there
was limited technology integration, and the majority were teacher-led activities. Patricia
recalled, “I did not use technology very much before student-supported technology professional
development.” Therefore, most—if not all—participants are now more inclined to integrate and
accept technology in the long run.
Despite the various backgrounds and experiences discussed by the participants, it was
evident that all participants used technology for personal needs, but seldom used it for
instructional purposes prior to student-supported technology professional development.
Questions number 23 asked: Number of years using the Internet___/Number of years using the
Internet in classroom instruction, which concluded that participants had anywhere from three to
93
nine more years of personal usage then in the classroom. Patricia expressed how she felt prior to
student-supported professional development saying,
Knowing how to use technology at home is not the same as using it in the classroom.
Using technology in the classroom use to be scary. I use to think, what would happen
if it didn’t work? I would have lost all that instructional time.
In addition, all participants reported that they had received some form of technology professional
development prior to this descriptive case study; however, that did not result in an increase in
technology acceptance or usage during classroom instruction.
Theme Three: Successful Experience with Technology
The student-supported professional development enabled teachers to experience
successful technology integration. Thus, perceptions of technology being effortless and good for
their job occurred. This theme addressed the TAM components perceived ease of use,
usefulness, intent to use, and actual use because participants discussed perceptions and
accomplishments during technology integration. James, one of the administrators, noted, “After
student-supported professional development, teachers were in awe of the things students could
do and the level of learning that occurred when they were provided with technology professional
development.” Barbara agreed, saying that after student-supported technology professional
development, “We used the iPads™ daily. It was used as a small group center, and then they
were also used for basic instruction during the whole group.” She went on to discuss the
increase in rigor that was based on technology integration.
Mary believed that there was an increase in productivity because she was able to observe
the impact of technology integration on student learning and instruction. She rated question
Four, which was: Using the Internet in my classroom can increase my productivity, with a four,
94
somewhat agree. Furthermore, she discussed how technology usage improved accountability in
the classroom. “I feel like it has increased productivity a lot. I have used it for reading centers
while I am doing a small reading group,” she said, adding, “And they’re held accountable by
having something to show for their center time.” Not only did Mary point out the ways that
technology had benefited reading instruction, but she also discussed the effects during
mathematics instruction.
As far as math, I feel like using the lessons and then letting the kids listen to the
lessons has given them that extra little bit of instruction they may have needed. I
can see where, in the future, it would be advantageous to have them pacing at
their own levels, which I could not have done without technology in the
classroom.
After receiving student-supported technology, observations of Mary that occurred in
October 2014 included various levels of technology integration into classroom instruction.
Students were observed working in three stations where learning included activities from Depth
of Knowledge levels three and four. Station activities included students working in groups or
independently. Thus, Mary used technology as a tool to increase classroom rigor.
Patricia also had her own observations with regard to maximizing the use of classroom
hours. “I feel like it’s helped my time management because I can have students do things on
technology while I’m working with other students… I know all my students are learning,” she
said. Patricia further discussed her past and current technology usage stating, “I would not say
that I had a great deal of experience, but I would say that I use way more than I did a few years
ago. I find it easier to troubleshoot with my students.”
95
During observations conducted in Patricia’s classroom in March 2015, students
independently logged on and worked with technology while learning and covering classroom
content. This differed greatly from the first two observations of her. Further, students worked on
a virtual book report and as part of it, they created an animated video describing a specific scene
from the book. While students worked, Patricia told them, “Remember that you have more
options available than we would have if we did not use the laptops.” Thus, technology had
provided the class with additional platforms and outlets to showcase learning. Patricia stated, “I
am able to do so much more in the classroom than I could before student-supported technology
professional development.” She further proved this as she rated question two from the survey,
which read: Using the Internet in my classroom can improve my performance, with a four,
somewhat agree.
Like previous participants, Margaret also credited technology integration for helping her
students become more proficient at finding solutions when she said:
I noticed it has helped them become better problem solvers, not just how to use
technology, but in general. It has helped them to be better communicators because they
help each other with issues on the computer, which then carries over to the regular
curriculum. It has made me a more effective teacher because it allows my students to see
materials in different format. They are also able to present their work in a different
format.
Margaret was also quick to note that the introduction of technology into the classroom
made learning more accessible and advantageous. “It has helped time management,” she
observed. “I do not have to take the time during content to teach them how to do it. They
already know.” She rated question one from the survey, which stated: Using the Internet in my
96
classroom can enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly, with the highest rating of a five,
strongly agree. Additionally, she observed that her students had expanded her own familiarity
with technology. She stated, “They will also explore with it and discover new features, which
they happily share with everyone else.”
Margaret stated that after student-supported technology professional development, she
felt “as if the rigor has increased after I started using technology more in the classroom with
students.” Observations of Margaret conducted in October 2013, prior to student-supported
technology professional development, demonstrated technology acceptance and integration, but
lacked rigor. The level of technology integration was basic, as it was similar to an activity that
could be completed using paper and pencil. Both Margaret and her students were using laptops.
Margaret was demonstrating how to set up a document, which would contain the students’
weekly spelling words written first in a sentence and then in a paragraph. Once she was done
explaining and demonstrating, Margaret closed her laptop and walked around the room checking
student progress.
In October 2014, Margret was observed while integrating technology into classroom
instruction. Students created an animated video independently. Once the videos were published,
the link was copied and placed in the students’ weather book. During the observation, it was
noted that her students needed limited assistance. Margaret stated, “Technology in the classroom
has been great for me. The students are almost always on task now and rarely need to be
redirected. Before, I was spending a lot of time redirecting and getting students focused.”
Through interviews and classroom observations, it can be concluded that Margret views
technology integration as being positive with regard to increasing problem-solving skills,
communication, and classroom management.
97
In reference to current technology practices, Elizabeth discussed the important role usage
played in her classroom by stating, “Students are able to be creative, innovative, and problem
solve due to the use of technology while learning. They have more access to information.”
Further, she offered the following about how her teaching changed based on student-supported
technology professional development:
This is technology that has been exposed to me to utilize, and so I feel like it has
improved my teaching. Providing hands-on experiences, showing the kids how to use it,
how it all connects, and how it all works increases productivity in my classroom.
In January 2015, Elizabeth was observed with the primary focus being the integration of
technology in classroom instruction. This observation clearly demonstrated the effect of
technology in classroom instruction as it enhanced rigor, creativity, and academic content
standards. Elizabeth worked with the entire class on a retelling project. She had placed four
picture cards on each table. The students took a picture of each card in order, wrote a retelling
sentence, and recorded their voice reading their writing. The last step was to upload finished
pieces of work into Google Classroom™. At the end of the lesson, Elizabeth stated, “I still
cannot believe my students can do projects like this. I would have never tried to teach them
something like this. I did not know they had the skills to be so successful using technology.”
She further explained the benefit associated with students being able to read their own
writing and listen to themselves by stating, “My students are catching most of their own reading
and writing mistakes as a result of using technology daily.” For this reason, it was concluded
that technology influenced student learning in Elizabeth’s classroom.
Linda also mentioned that technology made research easier. She cited the help of
survey engines used to gather input from the students. According to her, “Once the
98
students have been introduced to various technology items, we were able to do it with
other content areas including science. I’ve been able to take what they have learned and
move it into ELA.”
Additionally, Linda discussed the effect that technology has had on mathematics
stating, “We’ve also done various things with math; you know making surveys with
Survey Monkey™ and pretty much everything you taught us during professional
development.” Linda clearly identifies a shift in her teaching. She added that her class
had also “started doing vocab squares every week where students are able to demonstrate
higher-level learning. Before, it was just paper, pencil, and at the level of recall.” Linda
supported this by rating question five on the survey, which was: Using the Internet in my
classroom can enhance my effectiveness while teaching, with the highest rating of a five,
strongly agree.
During an observation conducted in March 2014, Linda’s students worked on an online,
high-rigor activity. The students e-mailed Linda when they completed specific components of
the activity. She then checked the teacher portal and provided the student with immediate
feedback. Technology was used as a tool to discuss student work right away and increase rigor.
Indeed, these participants validate the effect technology has made in the classroom,
which was noted through interviews and observations collected as archival data as part of
program evaluation collected yearly during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years. Despite the
fact that participants know technology integration is effective, there is still a need for them to
experience its benefits so that they can move toward acceptance and then integration of
technology into classroom instruction.
99
Theme Four: Evidence of Acceptance and Integration
Technology has indeed become a factor in the classroom, and the participants had
different ways of dealing with technology in terms of how they use it to teach students.
According to James, one of the administrators, “A lot of teachers are willing to use it now, after
receiving student-supported technology professional development,.” He continued, “There was
definitely an increase in acceptance and integration. The elementary teachers went from
standard, old-time education processes to actual, some of them, technology use all the time.”
Prior to student-supported technology professional development, James clearly stated that
technology integration was minimal. He described integration before student-supported
technology professional development saying, “Well, 98% of the time, it was pen and paper and
lots of worksheets, drilling stuff into their head, and not upper-level critical thinking. Now
students are learning problem-solving skills, and upper-level critical thinking is constantly
occurring.”
James also noted changes in teacher attitudes and integration after technology
professional development. “Teachers were walking around sharing what they were doing while
using technology in the classroom. They were very proud.” He further discussed particular
activities he observed saying, “One teacher, whom I had never seen use technology during
instruction, had the students making virtual books where they created the picture, wrote their
own text, and recorded their voice reading the text.”
Barbara, the other administrator, was also quick to note that the teachers had accepted the
presence of technology in the school because it seemed progressive. She stated, “The acceptance
and usage of technology by teachers and students has increased. The understanding of the role
technology plays in student learning has increased.” Barbara also discussed the importance of
100
the changes in academics after teacher participants received student-supported technology
professional development. She said that technology had “enhanced student learning and is
engaging.” Barbara further explained the increase of technology acceptance and integration by
saying, “Teachers’ ability to understand that they do not have to know everything about
technology prior to usage in the classroom has been impacted. They now understand that both
the teachers and the students will figure out any issues that occur as a team.”
Mary revealed that she’d had a mental block with regard to incorporating technology into
her classroom. She stated, “Before student-supported technology professional development, I
was full of fear. There was fear there. That was the first emotion. Now, I am like, ‘Give me
more.” To further support this stance, she rated question 17 on the survey, which stated: I
always try to use the Internet in as many cases or occasions as possible during classroom
instruction, with a five, strongly agree. Mary confirmed that her increased confidence level
would impact her teaching when she stated:
I would definitely use technology again in my classroom now that I have had some
training where it is hands on. I have a student-support system right within the classroom
now. It gives me that confidence to know if I do not know the answer, that they might
know [it].
Throughout observations of Mary conducted during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school
years, she always exhibited technology integration. Examples included using the overhead
projector, iPads™, laptops, the Internet, specific applications, and programs. An example of
Mary’s acceptance and integration occurred during an observation conducted in March 2015.
Both Mary and her students were using technology, and she effectively modeled the platform.
101
The lesson started as a teacher-led activity and then transformed into a student-led one.
Collaboration amongst all stakeholders occurred throughout the lesson.
Patricia discussed how using technology had specifically impacted the way in which she
teaches students to write, saying:
Instead of maybe having them use as much pencil and paper, I have them create
stories. Like on Educreations™ or something like that so they are illustrating and
writing, but it is not so much pencil and paper because they also get to create and
explore.
Throughout classroom observations of Patricia, a trend resulting in an increase in
technology integration was revealed. The first two observations of her conducted in
October 2013 and January 2014 noted that technology integration was not observed.
However, in March 2014, October 2014, and January 2015, Patricia was observed using
technology in the classroom, and in March 2015, her students were using devices
throughout the observation.
In October 2013, technology was not integrated during my observation of Linda.
However, in January of 2014, after receiving one session of student-supported technology
professional development, technology had been integrated. Linda used an overhead projector
connected to a laptop to project a game. She was in charge of the mouse and directed the
activity.
Then in March 2015, observations of Linda portrayed a different level of technology
acceptance and integration: Her students had created a virtual book. Linda’s familiarity with the
technology device was demonstrated by her ability to answer student questions accurately and
clarify student technology struggles before answering. When troubleshooting, she provided
102
guidance to encourage students to problem solve independently. Her students were actively
engaged: The room was quiet, every student had a laptop, and they were creating text from a
story web. Per Linda’s instructions, each page was completed individually and included student-
generated text and drawings or pictures retrieved from the Internet. Additionally, students
recorded themselves reading their text. Upon completion, each one published his or her book
and shared a link to it with the class on Google Classroom™. Students were then able to navigate
the platform and upload pictures with limited questions. These three observations clearly
indicate an increase in technology acceptance and integration. Linda revealed the following
about the impact of technology integration on her students: “I am in awe of the things my class is
doing.” On the survey, Linda rated question six, which read: I found the Internet useful in my
teaching, with a five, strongly agree.
Margaret demonstrated her willingness to accept and use technology when asked to
participate in this type of professional development. Prior to participating in student-supported
professional development she stated, “I love to use technology and would enjoy sharing my
knowledge and experiences with the students.” She went on to say that she always researched
ways to integrate technology, but had limited experience in the actual usage during classroom
instruction. During the interview, she stated, “I learned so much through student-supported
technology professional development. I knew stuff before, but nothing compared to what I can
do now.” She continued, saying, “My students are now doing amazing projects and are able to
demonstrate higher-level thinking all the time.”
Likewise, Elizabeth also maintained that technology helps during whole-classroom
instruction when she said:
103
I use the iPads™ with the Apple TV™ to be able to walk around the classroom and
monitor what each child is doing while I am still turning the pages. I am still directing
the students, and I am still pointing to everything they need. That speeds up the
productivity of the students because I am more accessible to help them, rather than being
stuck at my desk working at the computer.
She further explained the increase of her ability and willingness to accept and
integrate technology in classroom instruction after receiving student-supported
technology professional development saying:
Now I schedule the time to use it weekly. I feel like the students are helping keep me on
target to use that technology because I tell them what times we have it, and then they
make me stay on track to use that technology.
Prior to student-supported technology professional development, Elizabeth pointed out
her success with navigating digital worlds for personal use. Despite her enthusiasm, she
admitted that she rarely integrated technology into her classroom. She stated, “Knowing how to
use technology at home and how to use it at school are two very different things.” However, this
changed after student-supported professional development as she rated question 18 on the
survey, which read: I expect my use of the Internet in my classroom instruction to continue in the
future, with the highest rating of a five, strongly agree.
Observations of Elizabeth in October 2013 did support her ability to adapt and accept
digital worlds, but she demonstrated limited knowledge of how to integrate them. She was
observed providing students with verbal cues as to how to navigate Google™. She gave direct
instruction; thus, each student searched for the same word and copied a specific definition that
was pasted onto a document. Each student was then coached on how to locate an image to
104
represent each word. Visuals to support learning were provided through the overhead projector.
Despite each student using a laptop, the majority of the lesson was teacher-led.
All three observations of Elizabeth included technology integration, but at various levels.
The first two observations incorporated teacher-led technology experiences. A shift from
teacher-led technology experiences to student-led experiences transpired after student-supported
technology professional development and prior to the third observation. That being said,
technology acceptance and integration was occurring in her classroom.
From the four trends identified, it is evident that all three research questions were
answered (Table 5).
Table 5
Research Question and Theme Alignment Research Question Theme
Question One One and Three
Question Two One and Three
Question Three One, Two, Three, and Four
Research Question One
The first research question, “How will the integration of a student-supported professional
development model impact teachers’ perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intent to
use technology in classroom instruction?” This question was designed to establish the role that
student support plays in teacher acceptance and technology integration. Teacher perceived ease
of use, usefulness, and intent to use was addressed through archival data consisting of classroom
observations that were conducted in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as part of program
evaluation, the survey, and interviews.
105
Teacher participants noted that student-supported professional development impacted
their perceived ease of use, usefulness, and intent to use technology. Additionally, they felt that
it was good for their respective jobs and that it did not take as much effort as they previously
perceived that it would. James stated, “Teachers are discussing the positive changes in academic
rigor, behaviors, and critical thinking. One teacher has even discussed improvements in
mannerisms and respect.” He further stated, “Student-supported professional development has
made technology integration easier for teachers and has provided teachers with a sense of
ownership.” James also pointed out that “technology was occuring about 2% of the time. This
program has drastically increased usage.”
Margaret and Elizabeth discussed how skill development increased their perception of
technology being easier to utilize. They further mentioned that the development of technology
skills also increased students’ ability to use technology; thus, providing evidence that student-
supported professional development leads to technology utilization in the classroom being
effortless. Patricia also discussed that using technology in the classroom became easier than it
had been before student-supported professional development; however, she also pointed out that
it is not completely effortless. “I would say it is easier,” she explained. “It’s not as easy as I
would like it to be. It is not as natural as I want it to be. But, I am not giving up.”
Mary further discussed how she perceived using various forms of technology in
her classroom by stating, “I had never used the Apple TV™ until you showed me and my
students how to do that. We actually did use it with a lesson we were doing. The lesson
was better.” Mary added, “I did not use my Apple TV™ before student-supported
technology professional development. It just collected dust.” Linda added that student-
106
supported professional development impacted her ease of use to the point that she was
“helping other teachers.”
Twelve survey questions addressed the TAM component of perceived ease of use.
An example is Question Seven: Learning to use the Internet in my classroom instruction
is easy for me. On the 5-point Likert scale with 5 being “strongly agree,” the overall
rating was 3.6, which would be closest to “somewhat agree.” Mary, Margaret, and Linda
rated this question as somewhat agree or strongly agree, while Patricia had given it
neither agree or disagree and Elizabeth stated somewhat agree. In the same manner,
Question Eight, which also addressed perceived ease of use, had an overall rating of 3.6;
while Elizabeth rated it with a two, somewhat agree, Patricia, Margaret, and Linda all had
given it a four or five. Question Eight was: I find it easy to find what I need or want to
integrate into classroom instruction from the Internet. All questions that focused on
perceived ease of use were rated overall at a 3 or higher; therefore, it was concluded that
participants did not disagree with technology acceptance.
The TAM component of perceived usefulness, which addresses a person’s belief that
using technology is good for their job, correlates to many of these impacts. James noted this
when he said, “I am in classrooms all the time. Student-supported technology professional
development has improved classroom management, independent thinking, and the level of
instruction, rigor. Technology integration in classroom instruction occurs at least 60% of the
time.”
Administrator Barbara also made similar comments. She mentioned, “I am in classes a
lot. Student-supported technology professional development has increased the amount and rigor
of technology in the classroom. Technology usage has increased.” Likewise, Linda noted how
107
technology integration was good for her job when she stated, “My students have benefitted a lot
from this experience. They demonstrate a higher understanding of content now. Their
standardized assessment scores were much higher than previous years. I credit some of this to
technology integration.”
All of the participants viewed technology integration as a primary factor in the expansion
of academic rigor, thus improving job performance. Elizabeth supported this claim when she
discussed that her students have started self-correcting, which she perceives as a result of
technology integration. Mary pointed out that her students primarily worked at a depth of
knowledge levels three or four during technology integration. Furthermore, she referenced
improvements in both mathematics and reading, by saying:
I feel like we have utilized it for math lessons. We have also used it for enrichment in the
science and social studies areas. I feel like we are able to do that a little bit more than I
normally would have been able to do.
Mary addressed the non-academic benefits with regard to why technology integration was
helpful to her job. She said, “Communication among students, problem-solving, and their
willingness to help each other has increased since I have integrated technology into classroom
instruction.” She also noted the impact on instruction by stating, “I feel like all of this has helped
a lot with our instruction in many of the academic areas.”
Ten questions on the survey discussed the TAM construct of perceived usefulness
multiple times. Question One provided an example by asking: Using the Internet in my
classroom can enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly. Participants rated this question with
a three or higher, which is neither agree or disagree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree.
Another question that addressed perceived usefulness was Question Six: I find the Internet useful
108
in my teaching. The overall rating for this question was 3.8, which is still closest to somewhat
agree. Linda rated this question with a five, strongly agree, while Mary, Patricia, and Margaret
had given it a four, somewhat agree. The lowest score for this question was noted by Elizabeth
with a two, somewhat disagree. The overall ratings for perceived usefulness were rated higher
than perceived ease of use, but both were rated between 3 and 4.
Data analysis indicated that teachers perceived student-supported technology professional
development to have an impact on their technology acceptance and integration. Participants still
experienced some struggles with technology; therefore, they did not find it to be completely
effortless. However, utilization continued because of the perceived benefits to student learning.
Additionally, teacher participants commented that the more they used it, the easier it became.
Intent to use technology addresses a person’s calculated goal towards actual technology
usage. Linda noted the impact student-supported professional development has had on her intent
to use technology as she foresees her technology integration to continue. The interview
discussion included the following statement:
I will always use technology when there is a feature that I can implement. I use
technology multiple times a day. During a school day, I use technology more for
classroom instruction than anything else. I have always been able to use technology, but
now I know I can use it even more. I plan to continue to implement technology,
especially into more subject areas.
This sentiment was echoed by other participants, as they pointed out that they also expected to
continue utilizing technology during classroom instruction. Intent to use was noted in Question
18, which received the overall highest rating on the survey with a rating of 4.6 (between
“somewhat agree” and “strongly agree”). Question 18 asked: I expect my use of the Internet in
109
my classroom instruction to continue in the future. Mary, Elizabeth, and Linda rated this
question with a five, strongly agree, while Patricia and Margaret had given it a four, somewhat
agree. Thus, it was deduced that all participants expect to continue accepting and integrating
technology into classroom instruction.
Additionally, all participants expressed an increase in the usefulness of technology. They
discussed increases in their perceptions, thus making technology easier to integrate into the
classroom. Moreover, all participants intended to continue utilizing technology during
instruction. While I had anticipated that the participants would find technology integration
useful, I had not expected that they would be willing to integrate without a full understanding of
the device or platform. Participants noted that they no longer felt the need to be technology
experts before utilizing technology in the classroom.
Research Question Two
Answering the question, “How will the integration of a student-supported professional
development model impact teachers’ actual use of technology in classroom instruction?”
provided an understanding of changes in technology integration. This question addressed a
person’s genuine technology usage, which is a component of the TAM. Archival data consisting
of classroom observations conducted during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as part of
program evaluation, open-ended interviews, and the survey were used to answer this question.
Participants provided clear evidence to support how student-supported professional
development impacted teachers’ actual use. Linda and Elizabeth discussed that utilization
enabled them to provide immediate feedback to students. Elizabeth further explained that she
could immediately clear up misconceptions, which does not always occur during traditional
teaching methods. She explained that many of the technology applications provided her with
110
immediate feedback on student progress, understanding, and learning. Therefore, she began
utilizing technology more during her classroom instruction.
Margaret emphasized the importance of skill development, which she felt was a result of
student-supported technology professional development. She discussed how the reduction in
time consuming skills, such as logging in, led to actual use. She stated, “Some things used to
take forever. I got to the point where technology just was not worth it. This all changed after
student-support.”
James, Mary, Margaret, and Elizabeth all noted that academic rigor increased as a result
of technology usage during classroom instruction. James stated, “Without student-supported
professional development, teachers would have never observed the rigor students are capable
of.” He explained, “While watching student-supported professional development, I saw students
pointing out things to teachers and taking on the instructor role. Student-support increased rigor.
The students wanted more.” He focused on student-supported professional development as the
primary factor impacting teacher actual use. James stated, “In terms of teachers, student-
supported technology professional development has impacted their technology usage and
acceptance. A lot of teachers are willing to use it now.”
Research Question Three
As the researcher, I needed to answer: “What evidence suggests that student-supported
professional development for technology is responsible for the encouragement of teachers’
technology integration into classroom instruction?” The participant interviews produced the
richest data on the participants’ views, and thus addressed the impact of student-supported
technology professional development on their acceptance and integration of technology usage.
Evidence was provided though face-to-face open-open ended interviews, archival data consisting
111
of classroom observations conducted during the 2013-2014 and 2014-15 year as program
evaluation, and the survey.
Administrators James and Barbara discussed the lack of technology usage prior to
student-supported professional development. Specifically, James pointed out technology usage
rose from 2% to about 60% at his school as a result of student-supported professional
development. Barbara added that “the iPads™ went from just sitting in the cart—no one ever
used them—now they are in classrooms all the time.” Mary further supported this claim, as she
discussed her daily use during reading instruction as a result of student-supported professional
development. Elizabeth also began scheduling weekly technology integration.
Data analysis revealed that participants continued integrating technology during
classroom instruction. This was observed during classroom observations that were retrieved
through archival data collected during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 years as part of program
evaluation. Technology integration did not occur in the first two observations of Patricia, but the
subsequent four involved technology integration at various levels. Classroom observations
revealed that there were no devices integrated during classroom instruction in two of the
participants’ classrooms in October 2013. This number reduced to one in January 2014, and then
to zero during all other observations.
Despite the fact that the survey did not address how technology was being integrated, it
did include Question 23, which addressed: Number of years using the Internet and Number of
years using the Internet in my classroom instruction. The data concluded that participants had
used the Internet overall for an average of 8.8 years. Interviews revealed that despite Internet
usage prior to this study, there was limited integration of it occurring in the classroom. This was
supported by participants concluding that they had only used technology for an overall average
112
of 3.8 years during instruction. James also supported this during his interview by stating that
technology integration is still occurring in classrooms.
Summary
Data provided in this chapter provided insight about the impact of student-supported
technology professional development. Participants shared their experiences before and after
student-supported technology professional development. Data included participants discussing
the ways in which their teaching had changed in terms of technology integration. Student-
supported technology integration played a role in developing participants’ acceptance as it
pertained to perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, intent to use, and actual technology
utilization.
Six observations of all teacher participants were retrieved through archival data
conducted during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as part of program evaluation. All
teacher participants were subject to an interview and a survey. Both administrator participants
observed each participant at least three times and took part in an interview. James observed each
participant six times during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years. Each teacher participant
reported that his or her technology acceptance and integration increased as a result of student-
supported technology professional development.
Interviews and observations of Patricia and Linda concluded that technology integration
and acceptance prior to student-supported technology professional development was limited.
After receiving student-support, all participants reported that their acceptance and integration of
technology had increased. Mary, Margaret, and Elizabeth demonstrated an increase in academic
rigor during and after student-supported technology professional development. They also shifted
from teacher-led to student-led technology integration.
113
James reported that all teacher participants demonstrated drastic increases in technology
accept and integration into classroom instruction by stating:
Teachers that participated in student-supported technology professional development
have continued to integrate technology into their classroom instruction. Some have not
explored or implemented anything past the learning that occurred in student-supported
technology professional development, but there is a subset of those teachers that have
taken it further. The subset is small.
He further explained that despite technology being implemented, not all participants were
demonstrating growth in terms of technology integration. James stated:
The other teachers that did accept and integrate technology into classroom instruction are
still doing the same things they were taught and have not extended their learning or
integration past what they learned while participating in student-supported technology
professional development. Therefore, I think that acceptance or comfort level impacts
technology integration into classroom instruction.
While the data showed an increase in participants’ technology acceptance and integration,
all three research questions were answered by their perceptions and archival data consisting of
observations conducted during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as part of program
evaluation. This summary included the opinions and beliefs of the participants, thus laying the
groundwork for themes that developed throughout this case study. A summary of the findings,
discussion, implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research pertaining to
technology integration in context to student-supported technology professional development is
discussed in Chapter Five.
114
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
Overview
As stated at the beginning, this study was conducted keeping in mind the benefit that
technological integration can provide on student achievement (Machado & Chung, 2015).
Despite increasing support of researchers, there has remained a lack of technology integration
into classroom instruction over the past decade. This may be attributed to the inadequate efforts
by schools to prepare teachers to accept and use technology for such purposes (DeNisco, 2014;
Morgan, 2014; Navidad, 2013; Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012; Tamim et al., 2011). This case
study built on the existing literature regarding technology professional development by filling in
the gap on empirical research about elementary student-supported technology professional
development.
The purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ acceptance and integration of
technology in the classroom in the context of a student-supported professional development
model. There is a need for such a model, particularly at the elementary level. This study offers
an effective one for school personnel to adopt as part of their efforts to enhance the use and
acceptance of technology for classroom purposes by examining long-term development solutions
as opposed to current, short-term approaches. This chapter includes a summary of the findings
and themes that developed through data analysis. I have addressed the findings in relation to
Davis’ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model and the review of literature in Chapter Two.
Delimitations and limitations of research are noted. Furthermore, recommendations for future
research are explained.
115
Summary of Findings
Through observations retrieved from archival data conducted during the 2013-14 and
2014-15 school years as part of program evaluation, interviews and surveys, the following four
themes emerged: skill and knowledge development, lack of use prior to intervention/professional
development, successful experience with technology, and evidence of acceptance and
integration. The themes were used to answer the research questions presented in this case study.
Research Question One
How will the integration of a student-supported professional development model impact
teachers’ perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and intent to use technology in classroom
instruction? Participants discussed their increased ease towards technology use and integration
into classroom instruction and stated that they accepted it over time. Specifically, Mary noted
that, “I was scared of integrating technology at the beginning of professional development.”
However, she said, “After student-support, it become easy to use technology in the classroom.”
All seven participants were asked about the impacts of perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness, and intent to use technology in classroom instruction based on a student-supported
professional development model. The five teacher participants felt that they had integrated
technology more after student-support than during previous years, and the administrator
participants echoed this sentiment. All participants also discussed an increase in rigor, time
management, and a shift from teacher-led to student-led technology opportunities. Additionally,
teacher participants said that prior to participating in professional development, they primarily
used technology in the classroom for administrative purposes.
The participants also indicated that they were less concerned after integration of student-
supported professional development about lacking knowledge about certain aspects of
116
technology. Rather, if they lacked a technology skill, then either a student would be familiar
with it or the class would figure it out as a team. All participants felt that it is imperative to
include students in technology professional development.
Despite the fact that all of the participants discussed increased levels of technology
acceptance and integration into classroom instruction after student-support, James noted after the
conclusion of professional development, “most of the teachers did not integrate technology past
the level of what was taught during professional development.” However, he added, “there is a
subset of those teachers that has taken it further. The subset is small.” In lieu of this, he further
emphasized that the level in which participants have accepted technology and integrated it into
classroom instruction had increased as a direct result of including students in technology
professional development. “Teachers are more comfortable,” he suggested, “and enjoy
technology more after receiving student-supported technology professional development.”
Research Question Two
How will the integration of a student-supported professional development model impact
teachers’ actual use of technology in classroom instruction? The integration of a student-
supported professional development model resulted in an increase in technology usage in the
classroom based on the findings. All seven participants acknowledged that before integration of
the program, use of technology was not very prevalent for the purposes of classroom instruction.
Afterwards, they acknowledged a significant increase in their use of technology in the classroom,
as well as that of their colleagues. Furthermore, it could be observed that there was an increase
in the number of observations where students and teachers were using technology in the
classroom, and a decrease in the number of observations where no technology was being used
117
over the course of the study. This indicated an increase in the use of technology in the
classroom, as well as an increase in teachers’ comfort with using technology.
Opportunities to provide immediate feedback during technology integration, skill
development, and the increase in academic rigor all impacted actual utilization. Immediate
feedback enabled participants to clear up instructional misconceptions immediately. The
importance of skill development increased actual use improving time management and user
perceptions of their ability to use technology. Additionally, an increase in academic rigor
resulted from student-supported technology professional development.
Research Question Three
What evidence suggests that student-supported professional development for technology
is responsible for encouraging teachers to integrate it into the classroom? Participants reported
that after student-supported professional development for technology, they learned better uses for
technology. Additionally, participants were able to better plan and recall how to use certain
aspects of technology through the support of the students. The teachers also reported that they
planned to expand the use of technology into additional subject areas.
Looking at the results of the study, there are several notable effects of the integration of
student-supported technology professional development. After integration, the use of technology
in the classroom was more prevalent, and in particular, it’s use for instructional as opposed to
administrative functions increased. Teachers became noticeably more comfortable with
technology over the course of the study, and students were more independent as a result of its
integration.
118
Discussion
Data evaluation revealed that participants’ technology acceptance and integration
increased as a result of student-supported technology professional development. Furthermore,
the data indicated that participants felt that academic rigor, student problem solving, and
communication increased with the integration of technology. This confirmed the review of
literature on the benefits of technology integration in classroom instruction (Morgan, 2014;
Navidad, 2013; Pamuk et al., (2013); Tamim et al., 2011). All seven participants noted the
increase in technology integration after student-support. Participants also demonstrated
acceptance by noting that they did not feel as if they needed to be technology experts prior to
integrating technology into the classroom. I will begin by discussing the findings of this case
study as they pertain to the theoretical framework. Then, I will relate conclusions to previous
research discussed in the review of literature.
TAM and Student-Supported Technology Professional Development
This study focused on the ways in which a student-supported technology professional
development model encouraged changes in acceptance and use of technology among
participants. As previously discussed, the theoretical framework that this study is based off of is
TAM, which in turn is based on the theory of TRA. TAM focuses on direct influences on
technology use, which concludes: If perceived ease of use is improved or perceived usefulness
improves, the result will be actual use of technology in the classroom. A study by Naeini and
Krishnam (2012) of Malaysian elementary students using computer games noted this connection.
In it, a significant positive correlation between perceived ease of use and usefulness, and actual
use of technology was indicated. However, this study did not focus on the use of technology by
teachers for instructional purposes.
119
Based on the results of this study, several reasons are suggested (as it relates to the
theoretical framework) for why student support and professional development translate to
increased integration of technology in the classroom. For example, one participant stated that
she accepted technology because she understood the important role that it plays in student
learning. Further, she recognized the changing norms around her as being a result of technology
professional development, which led to her change in attitude.
The findings indicate that professional development has the effect of increasing the
likelihood that teachers will accept technology in the classroom. O’Koye (2010) reached similar
conclusions by examining the effect of professional development through the use of a coach on
technology integration in the classroom. The study used a small sample size of 14 teachers, with
data collected via participant interviews and surveys, much like this study did. Participants
credited changes in technology integration in the classroom to support provided from the
technology coach. The authors concluded that teachers who worked with technology coaches
demonstrated a significant increase in feelings of efficacy towards technology use in the
classroom. Another study by Blackmon (2013) utilized survey data from middle school teachers
that were asked to rate nine professional development methods. Of all nine methods, peer
support or mentoring were perceived to be the most effective.
In addition to changing the perceived norms as they related to technology use, technology
professional development also had the effect of improving its perceived usefulness. Participants
interviewed indicated that they learned “better uses” for technology than they previously
employed. Several of them noted that they felt comfortable using technology for purposes
outside of instruction, such as administrative functions. However, after technology professional
development, they had a greater understanding and were more comfortable using it for a wider
120
variety of functions and subjects. The implication is that participants identified a greater scope
of use for technology, and as a result, were more likely to accept it. Linton et al. (2013)
concluded similar results, which led to increases in technology integration and student
achievement. However, they did not focus on support provided by students.
From the participant standpoint, student support had the effect of improving their
perceived ease of use and usefulness of technology in the classroom. Several participants noted
that technology was easier to use in the classroom with student support because teachers realized
that they did not have to know every function because the students would provide assistance if
needed.
As it relates to the use of students as mentors for technology in the classroom, some
studies have examined the use of student technology teams in schools. Brooks-Young (2006)
examined student technology teams in two middle schools to address lack of professional
technology personnel. At both schools, students were trained to handle maintenance issues with
software. The result was that at least one student in each classroom had the skills to fix or refer
out technology issues that might occur, taking some of the burden from the teachers.
Breiner (2009) conducted a study on a similar program utilized at a middle school. In
this program, some students were taught to provide technology assistance to teachers, rather than
just serve as troubleshooters. As a result, those students were able to provide first-hand
technology training to teachers.
Another study by Corso and Devine (2013) looked at the use of college students as
technology mentors at a community college. The institution integrated a student technology
mentor program, which was designed to support technology professional development as well as
the integration of technology in the classroom. The program started with five students and
121
expanded to 40. The community college identified the program as a successful tool to support
technology integration. These studies differ from this case study in the educational levels of the
students and the manner in which students were used to facilitate the integration of technology in
the classroom.
In terms of whether the student-supported technology professional development model
was successful at the elementary school level at increasing the integration of technology in
classroom instruction, there is no literature that examines this effect. The majority of relevant
research on this topic pertained to either the efficacy of a student-support model or a
professional-development model, but not both, and not at the elementary school level.
With regard to perceived usefulness, participants noted that the use of technology helped
them better manage their time, be more efficient, and increase student engagement. The
implication was that by utilizing student support for technology, teachers recognized the larger
benefit from technology to their professional objectives and became more likely to accept it
(Williams et al., 2014). Hyland and Kranzow (2012) concluded that technology integration is
more efficient and increases time management, which concurs with this study. However, Hyland
and Kranzow (2012) did not focus on students as a support system during technology
professional development. Furthermore, research conducted by Esteve et al. (2015) supported
increased student engagement results from technology access in the classroom; but unlike my
case study, it only focused only on IWB access.
To summarize, the findings indicated that student support and technology professional
development have the benefit of improving perceived ease of use and usefulness of technology
by participants. As a result, the actual use of technology was increased. This supports the
literature, which has demonstrated a correlation between perceived ease of use, usefulness, and
122
actual use. This also supports the findings of Aypay et al. (2012), who concluded that pre-
service teachers’ use of technology was highly influenced by TAM. Furthermore, Fishbein and
Azjen (1980) suggested that when people view technology as being favorable, they are more
likely to both acquire and utilize it.
Technology Integration in the Classroom
As stated earlier, teachers desiring to meet the needs of their students need to understand
and use technology in classroom instruction (Aviles & Eastman, 2012). As such, there is an
onus for an effective model of technology professional development. The literature suggests that
technology integration had a positive impact on student learning. Research had shown that the
use of technology in the classroom resulted in higher levels of student engagement and
achievement (Morgan, 2014; Navidad, 2013; Tamim et al., 2011).
One such study, conducted by Hyland and Kraznow (2012), examined the perceptions of
both teachers and students in the use of technology to develop critical thinking and self-directed
search. The results of the study indicated that both students and faculty members felt that e-
materials had a positive influence on students’ learning behavior involving critical thinking and
self-directed learning. Unlike my case study, they utilized closed- and open-ended surveys as
their primary method of data collection. Furthermore, Hyland and Kraznow focused on the use
of e-texts and e-libraries and conducted their study at a private, post-secondary institution, as
opposed to an elementary school.
Blanchard et al. (2016) conducted a study investigating ongoing technology professional
development (TDP) administered to 20 mathematics and science teachers. Data analysis resulted
in the following: participant increases in technology comfort level, higher assessment scores,
123
substantial academic gains, and an increase in graduation rate. Unlike my case study, which
focused on elementary school teachers, Blanchard et al. focused on high school teachers.
Hayden et al. (2011) conducted a similar study focusing on a structured professional
development program known as iQUEST. It concluded that student academic performance
demonstrated significant gains as a result of classroom technology integration. Different from
my study, Hayden et al. (2011) enhanced technology integration through a trained adult mentor
and focused only on science.
The above findings align with those of the current case study. Among the results,
participants reported that after integration of student-supported technology professional
development, participants were impressed by the students’ ability to work independently, solve
problems, and help each other when a technology related issue arose. Participants also noted that
the use of technology seemed to benefit students’ ability to think critically while solving
problems and be more productive. Additionally, participants discussed that students wanted to
learn more about different aspects of the technology.
Technology Professional Development
Regarding the effect of professional development on technology use, studies have found
that teachers who receive effective technology professional development are more likely to
integrate technology into the classroom. More specifically, researchers have found a positive
correlation between professional development and technology use in the classroom, indicating
that effective technology professional development is predictive of technology use (DeNisco,
2014; Ertmer et al., 2012; Badri et al., 2015). However, none of these studies have analyzed the
degree to which professional development impacts technology use; rather, they only addressed
only the perceived relationship and attitudes.
124
A study conducted by Badri et al. (2015) examined the correlation between technology
professional development and technology use in the classroom. The results showed a significant
positive correlation between the two, indicating that professional development is predictive of
technology use. The study utilized survey data from secondary teachers. Another study by
Gerard et al. (2012) suggested that classroom teachers who received professional development to
help them understand how technology enhances and relates to curriculum were more successful
at integrating it into their classrooms than were teachers who did not receive the professional
development. Similar to this case study, technology professional development led to an increase
in technology usage in the classroom; however, neither of these studies focused on student-
support during technology professional development. In this study, technology integration
primarily resulted from teacher’s perception of technology becoming effortless and good for
their job. Participants discussed technology was easier to use after student-supported
professional development. Additionally, participants also pointed out that academic rigor
increased, immediate feedback became possible, problem-solving skills increased, and
technology skills were developed.
A number of factors have been found to contribute to the lack of integration of
technology in the classroom, which professional development addresses. This includes
inadequate preparation for the teacher to use technology for classroom instruction. A study by
DeNisco (2014) found that 46% of kindergarten through 12th grade teachers stated that they
lacked the skills to use technology effectively in the classroom, despite the fact that 93% of those
surveyed reported that technology had a positive effect on student engagement. A study by
Howley et al. (2011) found that teachers felt as though they had been inadequately prepared to
provide technology opportunities for students. Another study by Asodike and Jaja (2012) in
125
Nigeria found that while most primary schools had at least one desktop computer per classroom,
the majority of teachers felt that they did not have adequate computer skills, which they
attributed to a lack of training. This indicates that although teachers recognize the benefits of
technology integration, many lack the knowledge or understanding to do so in a classroom
setting.
The findings of this study support these claims. Several teachers reported that before this
program was integrated, they were comfortable using technology on their own. However, they
were unsure how to integrate it into their teaching. After technology professional development,
they noted that they were able to use the technology in the classroom. Additionally, teachers
reported that among the major impediments to technology integration was the fact that they were
not comfortable using it with students. From a theoretical standpoint, this supported the TAM,
which suggests the connection between perceived ease of use and actual use of technology.
After being trained to use technology in the classroom with student-support, teachers perceived
that it would be useful; therefore, they choose to integrate it into classroom instruction.
Expanding on this subject, while there are past studies that have examined programs for
technology professional development, most have looked at ineffective programs in order to
understand what does work. Elements that have been noted as being effective include ongoing
professional support and technology coaching and mentoring (Duran et al., 2011; Gayton &
McEwan, 2010; Koh & Neuman, 2009; Lutrick & Szabo, 2012; Neuman & Cunningham, 2009;
O’Koye, 2010). Another component that researchers support is an understanding of technology
operation and application within professional development (Potter & Rockinson-Szapkiw, 2012).
Linton & Geddes (2013) supported this claim by noting that instructional device and software
126
training resulted in an increase in teacher confidence with regard to the use of technology in the
classroom.
Regarding the link between student support and technology use in the classroom, most
studies have examined student technology leadership at the middle school and college level, but
not at the elementary school level. Furthermore, these studies have focused on the use of
students as mentors for teachers to perform certain tasks with technology and found these
practices to be an effective method of technology integration (Breiner, 2009; Brooks-Uong,
2006; Corso & Devine, 2013).
Looking at the elementary school level specifically, there is evidence to support the
potential success of student-support during technology professional development. Past studies
have suggested that elementary school children, having grown up around technology, are more
competent in using it (Bait, 2011; McAlister, 2009). Participants reported that a primary factor
of their ability to integrate technology in the classroom was student knowledge. One participant
noted that she felt the students helped teach her because they retained different pieces of
information, and vice versa. Additionally, it was reported that student confidence with utilizing
technology was never an issue; rather, the concern was the participants’ lack of confidence.
Participants in this case study further discussed the fear they had prior to student-supported
professional development. After the intervention, participants reported that they no longer felt
they had to be technology experts. Participants noted if they lacked the skill or understanding,
then a student would provide needed guidance, thus increasing technology integration in
classroom instruction.
127
Implications
The purpose of this descriptive case study was to study teachers’ technology acceptance
and classroom integration in the context of a student-supported professional development model.
Additionally, the desire was to better understand the role of student-supported technology
professional development. All seven participants reported technology acceptance and integration
increased after student-supported technology professional development. Therefore, it is
imperative to point out the benefits of student-supported technology professional development to
classroom instruction and achievement. As a result, the following implications originated from
data collected from participants.
Implication One
This study addressed the need for an effective model for supporting the teachers’
acceptance and integration of technology in the classroom. In particular, it added to the literature
by addressing this need at the elementary school level. There is an empirical gap in research
about elementary student-supported teacher technology professional development. However,
research does support secondary and collegiate students in this capacity (Breiner, 2009; Corso &
Devine, 2013; Liu et al., 2015; Pierce, 2012).
Data collected from interviews, the survey, and archival data consisting of observations
collected yearly during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school years as part of program evaluation
resulted in increases in participants’ technology acceptance and classroom integration after
involvement in student-supported technology professional development. Overwhelmingly, after
student-supported technology professional development, participants noted that they were more
comfortable using technology. This correlates with findings from Williams et al. (2014), which
128
indicated that technology that is perceived as being useful will be integrated into classroom
instruction.
Furthermore, findings have implications at the organizational level and could benefit
educational institutions in understanding the necessary aspects for implementing a program that
would effectively advance the use of technology in the classroom. The findings could also
provide a benefit from a policy perspective, as it helps policy makers better understand how
technology can be used to enhance educational outcomes.
For educational institutions, this study indicates the need for a student-supported
professional development model for successful integration of technology in the classroom.
Additionally, the findings demonstrated a need for a long-term model of technology professional
development with additional follow up for facilitating successful technology integration.
Finally, the findings confirm that a student-supported model can be successful at the elementary
school level. School administrators may want to include these elements into the design of any
future programs intended to increase the use of technology in classroom instruction.
From a policy perspective, the findings from this study support previous studies that
indicated technology use in the classroom can benefit learning and academic achievement.
Based on the findings, policy makers may find it beneficial to increase funding for technology
based initiatives in schools or for further study of the effect and success of such programs.
From a theoretical standpoint, findings indicate support for the TAM and TRA as
effective models of technology integration in the classroom. The results show that professional
technology development and student support benefit the ease of use and perceived usefulness of
technology for classroom instruction among teachers. The result is an increase in acceptance and
actual use of technology in the classroom. For school administrators to develop an effective
129
program for technology integration, they must consider elements that promote such perceptions
and subsequently result in the desired outcome: increased acceptance and use of technology.
Based on these findings, several aspects should be present for schools looking to
implement programs to advance the use of technology in the classroom. A long-term program of
support for teachers is important, as it allows them to gradually become more comfortable using
technology in the classroom and incrementally increase the scope of use. I highlight the
importance of technology professional development in some form to enable teachers to utilize
technology in the classroom. Additionally, a program whereby students and teachers learn
together to use technology is effective at all educational levels because it enables teachers and
students to help each other when knowledge gaps arise.
Implication Two
The second implication from this study was the need for schools to utilize students as
support for teacher technology professional development. Students have played many roles in
supporting technology, including repairs and quick fixes, training, and mentors (Brooks-Young,
2006; Breiner, 2009; Corso & Device; 2013 Peto et al., 1989; Pierce, 2012). In this study, which
featured student-supported technology professional development, participants stated that they no
longer felt the need to know and understand every aspect of technology prior to using it in the
classroom because if they did not know something, then a student would.
Members of Generation Z, which encompasses current elementary school-aged students,
are technology savvy, access digital information easily, and are able to navigate digital
environments with ease (Emanuel, 2013; Gibson & Sodeman, 2014; Hartman & McCambridge,
2011). Additionally, they accept technology shifts faster than previous generations (Bajt, 011;
Gu et al., 2013; Krier, 2008). Research conducted by McAlister (2009) confirmed that students
130
are willing to try multiple techniques using technology in order to succeed. Wikia Technology
(2013) collected data from 1,200 students and concluded that they display quick adaptive
behaviors and use technology in more advanced ways than previous generations.
Delimitations and Limitations
Delimitations in research focused on the boundaries of the study and on determining how
the study findings could possibly lack generalization (Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005). Delimitations
consist of the nature of the sample size, setting, and time frame (Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005).
Limitations are considered probable weaknesses with the study (Creswell, 2013). Creswell
identified limitations as inadequate measures, loss or lack of participants in the study, and small
sample size.
Delimitations
The delimitations for this study included the target teacher and administrator population
and the sample. The target population consists of elementary teachers who participated in
student-supported technology professional development and administrators that observed
student-supported technology professional development at least three times in either the 2013-14
and/or 2014-15 school years. This study only included elementary teachers and administrators
because there are no research studies focusing on elementary students acting in a support role for
teacher professional development at this level. Previous research involving elementary students
focuses on technology troubleshooting, but does not include them supporting technology for
professional development to raise teacher acceptance and integration into classroom instruction.
This study only focused on teacher technology acceptance and classroom integration, but not on
student perceptions or views; therefore, data was not collected from students.
131
Limitations
The limitations within this study serve as a reference for determining the extent to which
the findings can be applied to other schools (Creswell, 2013). Limitations that occurred in this
study included: population, sample size, timeframe of study, and male-to-female ratio as it
pertains to data analysis. The research population may not be representative of other
populations in other school districts. The target population for this study had access to multiple
technological devices, which eliminated access to device issues like not having a device for
each student to use. The administration in the school district where this study was conducted
supported technology integration in classroom instruction, but this may not have been the
circumstance in other public school populations.
There are certain limitations that influenced the accuracy of the results. Among the most
important considerations is the limit of the sample to a single school district in one geographical
area. It is possible that the particular school district and location may have different experiences
or cultural attitudes towards technology from the general population. That, in turn, could impact
the outcome of the integration of such a program. The use of a single institution for observation
and the lack of comparison to other institutions that utilized a different approach for technology
integration make it difficult to analyze the effectiveness of a student-supported technology
professional development model in comparison to other approaches, as well as identify specific
aspects of the program that were effective.
Another issue included the small sample size, which tends to be an issue in case studies.
The school at which this study took place had 26 teachers, of which only 15 attended student-
supported technology professional development and five agreed to participate in this study. Of
the four administrators that observed student-supported technology professional development at
132
least three times during the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 school years, only two agreed to participate
in the study. This small sample size can make it difficult to draw conclusions that can be
attributed on a wider scale.
Additionally, the length of the study, which extended over the course of two school years,
may have caused some teachers and administrators to not want to participate. Furthermore, the
use of a single institution for observation and the lack of comparison to other institutions and
approaches made it difficult to analyze the effectiveness of a student-supported technology
professional development model. Further, it became difficult to identify specific aspects of the
program that worked best.
Finally, the male-to-female ratio, which is an aspect that cannot be controlled for, may
have impacted the results. The majority of data was gathered from females due to the location
chosen for the study. Past studies have suggested that technology behavior varies between males
and females; therefore, gender differences may affect the results and compromise the
generalizability of these conclusions to male teachers. In analyzing the results, the open-ended
nature of this case study approach has some limitations, as it means that the interpretation of the
findings is less clear cut and open to differing individual perspectives.
Recommendations for Future Research
This case study added to the literature regarding teacher acceptance and integration of
technology in the classroom by examining the subject in the context of elementary level
education and a student-supported professional development model. However, the application of
the findings of this study is limited by the small sample size and specific population evaluated,
from both an age and geographical standpoint.
133
To deal with the limitations discussed above, there are some measures that may be taken
in future examinations of this subject. Future studies should attempt to utilize a larger sample
size in order to broaden the generalizability of the findings. This may be done by utilizing a
multi-case case study, which would allow for data to encompass a wider scope of participants,
rather than limiting the observations to a single school. This would also allow for change over
time to be evaluated more effectively, as a greater number of individuals would likely remain in
the study given the ease of responding.
It may also be beneficial to explore this subject using a quantitative approach instead of a
qualitative one. Using a quantitative approach, one could explore the change in the amount of
class time spent using technology or the number of subjects taught with technology being the
primary tool for instruction. Future studies may also look more closely at how elements of
teachers’ backgrounds (i.e., experience or subject taught) impact the integration of technology in
the classroom. This might mitigate, to a certain extent, issues of gender ratio by singling out
specific teacher qualities. These strategies may make the results generalizable on a wider scale
and more conclusive.
With regard to how the topic pertains to the effectiveness of a student-supported
technology professional development model, future studies might evaluate the impact of such a
model for other age groups, such as middle school, high school, or college level. It might also be
beneficial to explore aspects of similar models at different schools, both public and private, to
identify the effectiveness of individual parts of the model. In addition to exploring the
effectiveness of a student-supported model on the integration of technology in the classroom, it
may also be interesting to examine how this model impacts students’ academic performance,
which can be examined using questionnaires.
134
Summary
This descriptive case study was conducted for the purpose of examining teachers’
acceptance and integration of technology in the classroom in the context of a student-supported
professional development model, particularly at the elementary school level. The expectation
based on the theoretical framework was that a student-supported professional development
model would improve the teachers’ ease of use and increase the acceptance and actual use of
technology in the classroom. Based on the literature relating to the subject matter, the
expectation was that a professional development model, particularly one relating to student-
support, would advance the acceptance and integration of technology in the classroom.
The finding of the study indicated that teachers were more likely to utilize technology in
the classroom for the purposes of instruction after the integration of a student-supported
technology professional development program. Furthermore, lining up with the theoretical
framework, it seemed that this outcome was due to improved recognition among teachers
regarding the perceived ease of use of technology. This chapter included a discussion of findings
and implications, as well as suggestions for future research.
The findings of this study, combined with that of the literature, highlight the benefits and
importance of student-support during professional development on the acceptance and ability of
teachers to integrate technology in the classroom. The review of literature discussed success
with the implication of students as mentors and professional development instructors, but
research did not focus on elementary students taking on these roles. The significant difference
from previous research and this study is the use of elementary student-support during technology
professional development.
135
Participants documented that technology integration into classroom instruction was
important; however, the majority of them noted limited use prior to student-supported
technology professional development. After student-support, all participants discussed their
increase in not only technology integration in the classroom, but also acceptance of it.
Additionally, data revealed that all participants have continued to use technology in the
classroom. The findings from this study have the potential to provide an additional technology
professional development model.
136
REFERENCES
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about
technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge among
preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 184-143.
doi: 10.1080/21532974.2011.10784670
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you are having fun: Cognitive absorption
and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665-694. doi:
10.2307/3250951
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation; reasoned and
automatic processes. W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social
Psychology, 1-33. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Akengin, H. (2008). Opinions of prospective social studies on the use of information
technologies in teaching geographical subjects. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
35(2), 126-139. Retrieved from
http://www.projectinnovation.biz/journal_of_instructional_psychology
Al Bataineh, M. (2014). Jordan social studies teachers’ perceptions of competency needed for
implementing technology in the classroom. Contemporary Educational Technology, 6(1),
38-61. doi: 10.1.669.3109
137
Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring student acceptance of e-learning
using technology acceptance model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of
Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(2), 4-
18. Retrieved from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu
Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding
academics’ behavioral intention to use learning management systems. International
Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143-155. doi:
10.14569/IJACSA.2014.050120
Amin, M., Rezaei, S., & Abolghasemi, M. (2014). User satisfaction with mobile websites: The
impact of perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and trust. Nankai Business Review
International, 5(3), 258-274. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/NBRI-01-2014-0005
Angrosino, M. V. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. (2012). Introduction to research in
education (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Asodike, J. J., & Jaja, A. S. (2012). Information communication technology (ICT) facilities
availability and usage in Rivers State public and private primary schools. International
Journal of Asian Social Science, 2(6), 918-928. Retrieved from
http://www.aessweb.com/journals/5007
Auerbach, C., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and
analysis (Qualitative studies in psychology). New York, NY: NYU Press.
138
Aviles, M., & Eastman, J. K. (2012). Utilizing technology effectively to improve Millennials’
education performance: An exploratory look at business students’ perceptions. Journal of
International Education in Business, 5(2), 96-113. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journal/jieb
Aypay, A., Celik, H. C., Aypay, A., & Sever, M. (2012). Technology acceptance in education: A
case study of pre-service teachers in Turkey. The Turkish Online Journal of Education
Technology, 11(4), 264-277. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net
Badri, M., Mousavi, T., Pour, M.R., Geravand, I., & Yenganeh, A. K. (2015). Examine the
relationship between use of the ICT and professional development of secondary school
teachers in Tabiz. Indian Journal of Science & Technology, 8(12), 1-5. Retrieved from
http://www.indjst.org
Bagozzi, R., Davis, F., & Warshaw, P. (1992). Development and test of a theory of technology
and usage. Human Relations, 45(7), 659-686. doi: 10.1177/001872679204500702
Bajt, S. K. (2011). Web 2.0 technologies: Applications for community colleges. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 2011,154, 53-62. doi:10.1002/cc.446
Barratt, M. J., Ferris, J. A., & Lenton, S. (2014). Hidden populations, online purposive sampling,
and external validity: Taking off the blindfold. Field Methods. Epub 2014 Apr 14. doi:
10.1177/1525822X4526838
Bernard, H. (2002). Research methods in anthropology (3rd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
Bennett, R. (2010). The role of technology in the mentoring and coaching of teachers. BECTA, 1-
60. Retrieved from http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-
licence/version/3
139
Bingimals, K. A. (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning
environments: A review of the literature. Journal of Mathematics, Science and
Technology Education, 5(3), 235-245. Retrieved from http://www.ejmste.com
Blackmon, L. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of professional development activities, which result
in successful integration of classroom instructional technologies (Doctoral dissertation.)
Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu
Blackwell, C. K., Lauricella, A. R., Wartella, E., Robb, M., & Schomburg, R. (2013). Adoption
and use of technology in early education: The interplay of extrinsic barriers and teacher
attitudes. Computer & Education, 69, 310-319. doi: 10.1016/jcompedu.2013.07.024
Blanchard, M., LePrevost, C. E., Tolin, A. D., & Guiterrez, K. S. (2016). Investigating
technology-enhanced teacher professional development in rural, high-poverty middle
schools. Sage Journals, 45(3), 207-220. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16644602
Borthwick, A., & Pierson, M. (2008). Transforming classroom practice: Professional
development strategies in educational technology. Washington D.C.: International
Society for Technology in Education.
Breiner, B. (2009). Creating tech wizards: Tech savvy students help teachers transform practice.
Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(7), 24. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org
Brinkmann, S. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in everyday life: Working with everyday life materials.
Aalborg University, Denmark: Sage Publication Ltd.
Brooks-Young, S. (2006). Student tech support: Tapping an underutilized resource. Today’s
Catholic Teacher, 40(1), 16-20. Retrieved from http://www.catholicteacher.com
Cain, T. (2009). Mentoring trainee teachers: How can mentors use research? Mentoring &
Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(1), 53-66. doi: 10.1080/13611260802233498
140
Chacko, P., Appelbaum, S., Kim, H., Zhao, J., & Montclare, J. K. (2015). Integrating
technology in STEM Education. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 5(1),
5-14. doi: 10.3926/jotse.124
Chaffin. A., & Harlowe, S. (2005). Cognitive learning applied to older adult learners and
technology. Educational Gerontology, 31, 301-329. doi: 10.1080/03601270590916803
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: Introducing qualitative methods series, (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chen, Q., Chen, H., & Kazman, R. (2007). Investigating antecedents of technology acceptance of
initial eCRM users beyond Generation X and the role of self-construal. Electronic
Commerce Research, 7(3), 315-339. doi: 10.1007/s10660-007-9009-2
Chien, H. M., Kao, C. P., Yeh, I. J., & Lin, K. Y. (2012). Examining the relationship between
teachers’ attitudes and motivation toward web-based professional development a
structural equation modeling approach. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 11(2), 120-127. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net
Chien, S. P., Wu, H. K., & Hsu, Y. S. (2014). An investigation of teachers’ beliefs and their use
of technology-based assessments. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 198-210. doi:
10.1016/j.cnh.2013.10.037
Chuang, H. H., Thompson, A., & Schmidt, D. (2003). Faculty technology mentoring
programs: Major trends in the literature. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education,
19(4), 101-106. doi: 10.1080/10402454.2003.10784472
Cooper, D., & Morgan, W. (2008). Case study research in accounting. Accounting Horizons,
22(2), 159-178. doi: http:dx.org/10.2308/acch.2008.22.2.159
141
Corso, J., & Devine, J. (2013). Student technology mentors: A community college success story.
The Community College Enterprise, 19(2), 9-21. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolcraft.edu/a-z-index/community-college-enterprise#.VvHl1TYrI_U
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development
in the United States and abroad. Stanford, CA: National Staff Development Council and
the School Redesign Network at Stanford University.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. doi: 10.2307/249008
Davis, F. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user
perceptions, and behavioral impacts. International Man-Machine Studies, 38, 475-487.
doi: 10.1006/imms.1993.1022
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warsaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology:
A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1002. doi:
10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
de Grove, F., Bourgonjon, J., & Van Looy, J. (2012). Digital games in the classroom? A
contextual approach to teachers’ adoption intention of digital games in formal education.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2023-2033. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.021
142
De Lima, J. (2007). Teachers’ professional development in departmentalized, loosely
coupled organizations: Lessons for school improvement from a case study of two
curriculum departments. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 18(3), 237-301.
Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/nses20/current
Dede, C., Ketelhut, D. J., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. (2009). A research
agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education,
60(1), 8-19. doi: 10.1177/0022487108327554
Delen, E., & Bulut, O. (2011). The relationship between students’ exposure to technology and
their achievement in science and math. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(3), 311-318. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net
DeNisco, A. (2014). Creating tech-savvier teachers. District Administration, 1,74. Retrieved
from http://www.districtadministration.com
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies on teachers’ professional development:
Towards better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Research, 38(8), 181-199.
doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140
Dietrich, T., & Balli, S. J. (2014). Digital natives: fifth-grade students’ authentic and ritualistic
engagement with technology. International Journal of Instruction, 7(2), 21-34. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1085266.pdf
Dilts, R. (2004). From coach to awakener. Capitola, CA: Meta Publications.
Dupont, S. (2015). Move over Millennials, here comes Generation Z: Understanding the “New
realists” who are building the future. Public Relations Society of America 1, 1-2.
Retrieved from https://www.prsa.org
143
Duran, M., Brunvand, S., Ellsworth, J., & Sendag, S. (2012). Impact of research-based
professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 313-
334. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2012.10782593
Emanuel, J. E. (2013). Digital native librarians, technology skills, and their relationship with
technology. Information Technology & Libraries, 32(2), 20-33. Retrieved from
https://ejournals.bc.edu
Emory, W. (1985). Business research methods, (3rd ed.). The Irwin series in information
and decision sciences. Boston, MA: Longman Higher education.
Englander, M. (2012). The interview: Data collection in descriptive phenomenological human
scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 13-35.
doi:10.1163/156916212X632943
Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, O. (2012).
Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers
and Education, 59(2), 423-435. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.02.001
Esteves, R. F., Fiscarelli, S. H., & Bizelli, J. L. (2015). The interactive whiteboard in primary
education: A case study of a Brazilian district school. International Journal of Education
and Research, 3(5), 253-266. Retrieved from http://www.ijern.com
Evanciew, C. E. P., & Rojewski, J. W. (1999). Skill and knowledge acquisition in the workplace:
A case study of mentor-apprentice relationship in youth apprenticeship programs.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(2), 24-54. Retrieved from
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE
144
Farber, N. K. (2006). Conducting qualitative research: A practical guide for school counselors.
Professional School Counseling, 95(5), 367-375. Retrieved from
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/school-counselors-members/publications/professional-
school-counseling-journal
Feagin, J., Orum, A., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). A case for case study. Chapel Hill, NC:
University of North Carolina Press.
Foster, P. N., & Wright, M. D. (2001). Unique benefits of technology education to children.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 38(2), 40-64. Retrieved from
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE
Foughty, Z., & Keller, J. (2011). Implementing digital math curricula. Principal Leadership,
11(5), 64-66. Retrieved from https://www.nassp.org
Fusilier, M., & Durlabhji, S. (2005). An exploration of student Internet use in India: The
technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behavior. Campus Wide
Information Systems, 22, 233-246. doi: 10.1108/10650740510617539
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. A. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Gayton, J., & McEwan, B. C. (2010). Instructional technology professional development
evaluation: Developing high quality model. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 52(2), 77-94.
Retrieved from http://www.dpe.org
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An
integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27, 51-90. Retrieved from http://www.misq.org
145
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail:
An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 389-400.
Retrieved from http://www.misq.org
Gerard, L. F., Varma, K., Corliss, S., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Professional development for
technology – Enhanced inquiry science. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 408-448.
doi: 10.3102/0034654311415121
Gibson, L. A., & Sodeman, W. A. (2014). Millennials and technology: Addressing the
communication gap in education and practice. Organization Development Journal, 32(4),
63-75. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journal/lodj
Glatthorn, A. A., & Joyner, R. L. (2005). Writing the winning thesis or dissertation: A step-by-
step guide (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Glesne, C., & Peshkin, A. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White
Plains, NY: Longman.
Goo, M., Watt, S., Park, Y., & Hosp, J. (2012). A guide to choosing web-based curriculum-based
measurements for the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(2), 34-40. Retrieved
from http://tcx.sagepub.com
Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in U.S.
public schools: 2009 (NCES 2010-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Greer, R., & Sweeney, T. A. (2012). Students’ voices about learning with technology. Journal of
Social Sciences, 8(2), 294-303. Retrieved from
http://thescipub.com/PDF/jssp.2012.294.303.pdf
146
Gregory, S., Scutter, S., Jacka, L., McDonald, M., Farley, H., & Newman, C. (2015). Barriers
and enablers to the use of virtual worlds in higher education: An explanation of educator
perceptions, attitudes and experiences. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 3-12.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org
Gu, X., Zhu, Y., & Guo, X. (2013). Meeting the “digital natives”: Understanding the acceptance
of technology in classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 392. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hartman, J., & McCambridge, J. (2011). Optimizing Millennials’ communication styles.
Business Communication Quarterly, 74, 22-44. doi: 10.1177/1080569910395564
Hayden, K., Ouyang, Y., Olszewski, B., & Bielefeldt, T. (2011). Increasing student interest and
attitudes in STEM: Professional development and activities to engage and inspire
learners. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 47-69.
Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org
Henderson, K. A. (2011). Post-positivism and the pragmatics of leisure research. Leisure
Sciences, 33(4), 341-346. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2011.583166
Hobson, A. (2003). Mentoring and coaching for new leaders: Full report. Nottingham: NCSL.
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. doi: 10.1080/15391523.2011.10782576
147
Holzinger, A., Searle, G., & Wernbacher, M. (2011). The effect of previous exposure to
technology on acceptance and its importance in usability and accessibility engineering.
Universal Access in the Information Society, 10, 245-260. doi: 10.1007/s1029-010-0212
Howley, A., Wood, L., & Hough, B. (2011). Rural elementary school teachers, technology
integration. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(9), 1-13. Retrieved from
http://jrre.psu.edu/
Hu, P. J., Clark, T. H. K., & Ma, W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by school
teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2), 227-241. doi:
10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00050-8
Huang, R., & Yang, J. (2014). The framework and method for understanding the new generation
of learners. In Huang, R., Kinshuk, Chen, N. S. The new development of technology
enhanced learning (pp. 3-25). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases
integration of technology into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education,
21(1), 37-56. doi: 10/1080/1475939X.2012.659894
Hyland, N., & Kranzow, J. (2012). Innovative conference curriculum: Maximizing learning and
professionalism. International Journal for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2),
1-15. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2012.060214
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Laptops in the k-12 classroom: Exploring factors
impacting instructional use. Computers & Education, 53(3), 937-944. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2010.04,004
148
Jiang, J. J., Hsu, G., Klein, G., & Lin, B. (2000). E-commerce user behavior model: An
empirical study. Human Systems Management, 19, 87-114. Retrieved from
http://www.iospress.nl/journal/human-systems-management
Juhary, J. (2014). Perceived usefulness and ease of use of the learning management system as a
learning tool. International Education Studies, 7(8), 23-24. doi: 10.5539/ies.v7n8p23
Kanchanatanee, K., Suwanno, N., & Jarenvongrayab, A. (2014). Effects of attitude toward using,
perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived compatibility on intention to
use e-marketing. Journal of Management Research, 6(3), 1-13. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v6i3.5573
Kesson, K. R., & Henderson, J. G. (2010). Reconceptualizing professional development for
curriculum leadership: Inspired by John Dewey and informed by Alain Badiou.
Educational Philosophy Theory, 42(2), 213-229. doi: 10.5539/ies.v8n8p21
Kiraz, E., & Qzdemir, D. (2006). The relationship between education ideologies and
technology in pre-service teachers. Educational Technology and Society, 9(2), 153-165.
doi: 10.1.1.109.6185
Kipsoi, E. J., Chang’ach, J. K., & Sang, H. (2012). Challenges facing adoption of information
communication technology (IST) in educational management in schools in Kenya.
Journal of Sociological Research, 3(1), 18-28. doi: 10.5296/jsr.v3i1
Klopping, I. M., & McKinney, E. (2004). Expanding the technology acceptance model and task-
technology fit model to consumer e-commerce. Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance Journal, 22, 35-48. Retrieved from https://aisnet.org
149
Knight, C. L. (2012). Roadblocks to integrating technology into classroom instruction (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text;
ProQuestDisertations & Theses Global. (Order No. 3514684).
Koh, S., & Neuman, S. B. (2009). The impact of professional development in integrating
technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better
questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614. Retrieved from
http://rer.sagepub.com
Krier, L. (2008). Students as technology leaders. Bulletin of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 35(2), 47-48. doi: 10.1002/bult.2008.1720350211
Kusano, K., Frederiksen, S., Jones, L., Kobayashi, M., Mukoyama, Y., Yamagishi, T.,
…Ishizuka, H. (2013). The effects of ICT environment on teachers’ attitudes and
technology integration in Japan and the U.S. Journal of Information Technology
Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 29-43. Retrieved from
http://www.informingscience.org/Journals/JITEIIP
Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2013). Educational technology training workshops for
mathematics teachers: An exploration of perception changes. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 29(4), 595-611. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1234/ajet.v29i4.335
Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology
into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and
answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-615. doi:
10.3102/0034654307309921
150
Lederer, A., Maupin, D., Sena, M., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The technology acceptance model and
the World Wide Web. Decision Support Systems, 29(3), 269-282. doi: 10.1016/SO167-
9236(00)00076-2
Lee, D., Woo, J., & Mackenzie, A. E. (2002). The cultural context of adjusting to nursing home
life: Chinese elders’ perspectives. The Gerontologist, 42(5), 667-675. doi:
10.1093/geront/42.5.667
Lee, Y. H., Hsieh, Y. C., & Hsu, C. N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the
technology acceptance model: Supporting employees’ intentions to use e-learning
systems. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 124-137. Retrieved from
http://www.ifets.info
Li, B., & Chan, S. (2007). Coaching as a means for enhancing English-language teachers’
professional development: A case study. Journal of In-Service Education, 33(3), 341-
358. doi: 10.1080/13674580701486952
Li, Y. L. (2015). The culture of teacher leadership: A survey of teachers’ views in Hong Kong
early childhood settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 43(5), 435-445. doi:
10.1007/s10643-014-0674-1
Lin, C. (2013). Exploring relationships between technology acceptance model and usability test.
Information Technology Management, 14(3), 243-255. doi: 10.1007/s10799-013-0162-0
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Linton, J., & Geddes, C. (2013). Growing technology leaders: Learn how a small, underserved
school district built capacity through collaboration, teacher-led professional development.
Learning & Leading with Technology, 41(1), 12. Retrieved from
http://www.iste.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/learn/publications/learning-leading
151
Liu, S. H., Tsai, H. C., & Huang, Y. T. (2015). Collaborative professional development of
mentor teachers and pre-service teachers in relationship to technology integration.
Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 161-172. Retrieved from Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/170777340
6?accountid=12085
Lutrick, E., & Szabo, S. (2012). Instructional leaders’ beliefs about effective professional
development. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(3), 6-12. Retrieved from
http://www.dkg.org
Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2005). The role of Internet self-efficacy in the acceptance of web-based
electronic medical records. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 17(1),
38-57. doi: 10.4018/joeuc.2005010103
Machado, L. J., & Chung, C. (2015). Integrating technology: The principal’s role and effect.
International Education Studies, 8(5), 43-53. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n5p43
Mahmood, M. A., Hall, L., & Swanberg, D. L. (2001). Factors affecting information technology
usage: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Journal of Organizational Computing
& Electronic Commerce, 11(2), 107-130. doi: 10.1207/S15327744JOCE1102_02
Martin, R. G. (2012). Factors affecting the usefulness of social networking in e-learning at
German University of Technology in Oman. International Journal of e-Education,
e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 2(6), 498-502. doi:
10.7763/IJEEEE.2012.V2.171
Matherson, L. H., Wilson, E. K., & Wright, V. H. (2014). Need TPACK? Embrace sustained
professional development. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(1), 45-52. Retrieved from
http://www.dkg.org
152
Matulich, E., Papp, R., & Haytko, D. L. (2008). Continuous improvement through teaching
innovations: A requirement for today’s learners. Marketing Education Review, 18(1), 1-7.
doi: 10.1080/10528008.2008.11489017
McAlister, A. (2009). Teaching the Millennial generation. American Music Teacher,
59(1), 13-15. Retrieved from http://www.mtna.org
McLeod, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2013). Supporting effective technology integration and
implementation. In M. Militello and J. I. Friend (Eds.), Principal 2.0: Technology and
educational leadership. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Megginson, D., & Clutterbuck, D. (2005). Techniques for coaching and mentoring. London/
Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and
analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, R. (2002). Teacher professional development needs in science, mathematics, and
technology in eastern North Carolina. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED473247
Moon, J.-W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context.
Information & Management, 38(4), 217-230. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00061-6
More, C. M., & Hart, J. E. (2013). Maximizing the use of electronic individualized education
program software. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(6), 24-29. doi:
10.1177/004005991304500603
153
Morgan, H. (2014). Focus on technology: Flip your classroom to increase academic
achievement. Childhood Education, 90(3), 239-241. doi: 10.1080/00094056.2014.912076
Moses, P., Wong, S. L., Baker, K. A., & Mahmud, R. (2013). Perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use: Antecedents of attitude towards laptop use among science and
mathematics teachers in Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Educational Resources, 22(3), 93- 299.
doi: 10.1007/s402999-012-0054-9
Muis, K. R., Ranellucci, J., Trevors, G., & Duffy, M. C. (2015). The effects of technology-
mediated immediate feedback on kindergarten students’ attitudes, emotions, engagement
and learning outcomes during literacy skills development. Learning and Instruction,
38(1), 1-13. doi: 10.10156j.learninstruc.2015.02.001
Mundy, M., Kupczynski, L., & Kee, R. (2012). Teacher’s perceptions of technology use in
schools. Sage Open 2012(2). doi:10.1177/2158244012440813
Naeini, F. H., & Krishnam, B. (2012). Usage pattern, perceived usefulness and ease of use of
computer games among Malaysian elementary school students. Research Journal of
Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 4(23), 5285-5297. Retrieved from
http://maxwellsci.com
Nasser Al-Suqri, M. (2014). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease-of-use and faculty acceptance
of electronic books: An empirical investigation of Sultan Qaboos University, Oman.
Library Review, 63, 4-5. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LR-05-2013-0062
Navidad, F. (2014). Students’ devised classroom games-simulations: An innovative tool on
mathematics achievement and motivation in nursing student. International Proceedings
of Economics Development and Research, 60, 14. doi: 10.7763/IPEDR.2013.V60.4
154
Ndongfack, M. N. (2015). Mastery of active shared learning processes for techno-pedagogy
(MASLEPT): A model for teaching professional development on technology integration.
Creative Education, 6(1), 32-45. doi: 10.4236/ce.2015.61003
Neuman, S. B., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional development and
coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational
Research Journal, 46(2), 532-566. doi: 10.3102/0002831208328088
Nicholas, D. B., Lach, L., King, G., Scott, M., Boydell, K., Sawatzky, B., Reisman, J.,
Schippel, E., & Young, N. L. (2010). Contrasting Internet and face-to-face focus groups
for children with chronic health conditions: Outcomes and participant experiences.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(1), 105-121. doi:
10.1177/1049732314523840
O’Koye, A. (2010). A study of technology coaching and teachers’ sense of computer efficacy as
predictors of technology implementation (Doctoral dissertation). Regent University, VA.
Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1970917
O’Neil, J. (1998). Rhetorical, science, and philosophy. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 28(2),
205-225. doi: 10.1177/0048319800202
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Glazewski, K. D., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2010). Teacher
value beliefs associated with using technology: Addressing professional and student
needs. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1321-1335. doi: 10.1016/jcompedu.2010.06.002
Ozel, S., Ozel, Z. E. Y., & Cifuentes, L. D. (2014). Effectiveness of an online manipulative tool
and students’ technology acceptances. International Journal of Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 1(1), 1-15. doi: 10.17278/ijesium.2014.01.001
155
Pamuk, S., Çakır, R., Ergun, M., Yilmaz, H. B., & Ayas, C. (2013). The use of tablet PC and
interactive board from the perspectives of teachers and students: Evaluation of the
FATIH project. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(3), 1815-1822. doi:
10.12738/estp.2013.3.1734
Park, E., & del Pobil, A. (2013a). Modeling the user acceptance of long-term evolution
services. Annual Telecommunication, 68(5), 307-315. doi: 10.1007/s12243-012-0324-9
Park, E., & del Pobil, A. (2013b). Technology acceptance model for the use of tablet PCs.
Wireless Personal Communications, 73(4), 1561-1572. doi: 10.1007/s11277-013-1266-x
Park, N., Rhoads, M., Hou, J., & Lee, K. M. (2014). Understanding the acceptance of
teleconferencing systems among employees: An extension of the technology acceptance
model. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 118-127. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.048
Pask, R., & Joy, B. (2007). Mentoring-coaching: A handbook for education professionals.
Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Persico, D., Manca, S., & Pozzi, F. (2014). Adapting the technology acceptance model to
evaluate the innovative potential of e-learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior,
30, 614-622. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.045
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.
Peto, E., Onishi, E., & Irish, B. (1998). Tech team: Student technology assistants in the
elementary and middle school. Worthington, OH: Linworth Publishing, Inc.
Pierce, M. (2012). Student-run tech support programs advance at the speed of technology. T.H.E.
Journal, 1. Retrieved from https://thejournal.com/articles/2012/11/06/student-run-tech-
support.aspx?=THE21
156
Potter, S. L., & Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J. (2012). Technology integration for instructional
improvement: The impact of professional development. Performance Improvement,
51(2), 22-27. doi: 10.1002/pfi.21246
Ravitz, J. (2009). Introduction: Summarizing findings and looking ahead to a new generation of
PBL research. Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 4-11.
doi: 10.7771/1541-5015-1088
Resta, V., Huling, L., & Yeargain, P. (2013). Teacher insights about teaching, mentoring, and
schools as workplaces. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue,12(1-2), 117. Retrieved from
http://www.infoagepub.com
Roca, J. C., & Gagné, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the
workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior,
24(4), 1585-1604. doi: 10.1016/jchb.2007.06.001
Rouibah, K., Abbas, H., & Rouibah , S. (2011). Factors affecting camera mobile phone adoption
before e-shopping in the Arab world. Technology in Society, 33(3/4), 271-283. doi:
10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.10.001
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publishing.
Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMania. The Technology Teacher,
68(4), 20-27. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com
Sawchuk, S. (2008). Leadership gap seen in post-NCLB changes in U.S. teachers. Education
Week, 28(3), 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
157
Schnellert, G., & Keengwe, J. (2012). Digital technology integration in American public
schools. International and Communication Technology Education, 8(3), 36. doi:
10.4018/jicte.2012070105
Selim, H. N. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites.
Computers & Education, 40, 343-360. doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00142-2
Shen, Q. (2009). Case study in contemporary educational research: conceptualization and
critique. Cross-Cultural Communication, 5(4), 21-31. doi: 10.3968/770
Shroff, R. H., Deneed, C., & Ng, E. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in
examining students’ behavioral intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600-618. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org
Skoretz, Y. M. (2011). A study of the impact of a school-based, job-embedded professional
development program on elementary and middle school teacher efficacy for technology
integration (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://mds.marshall.edu/etd/150.
(ED526330)
Smarkola, C. (2008). Efficacy of a planned behavior model: Beliefs that contribute to computer
usage intentions of student teachers and experiences teachers. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24, 1196-1215. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.04.005
Smolin, L. I., & Lawless, K. (2010). Using multi-literacies to facilitate relevant pedagogy in the
classroom. In D. R. Cole & D. L. Pullen, (Eds.). Multiliteracies in motion (1st ed., pp.
173-187). New York, NY: Routledge.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
158
Stewart, W. P., & Floyd, M. F. (2004). Visualizing leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4),
445-460. Retrieved from http://js.sagamorepub.com/jlr
Stoltzfus, J. (2005). Construct validity of the level of technology implementation (LOTI)
survey, in-service teacher version: A preliminary analysis. Philadelphia, PA: Mid-
Atlantic Regional Technology in Education Consortium.
Sung, H. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to
improving students’ learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education,
63(1), 43-51. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.019
Tai, Y., & Ting, Y. L. (2011). Adoption of mobile technology for language learning: Teacher
attitudes and challenges. The JALT CALL Journal, 7(1), 3-18. Retrieved from
http://journal.jaltcall.org
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P.C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What
forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second order
meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28. doi:
10.3102/0034654310393361
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of
competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(1), 144-176. doi:
10/1287/isre.6.2.144
Teo, T. (2009). Modeling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers.
Computers & Education, 52, 302-312. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
159
Teo, T., Ursavas, O. F., & Bahçekapili, E. (2012). Efficacy of the technology acceptance model
(TAM) to explain pre-service teachers’ intention to use technology: A Turkish study.
Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(2), 93-101. Retrieved from
http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/ijilt
Timothy, T. (2009). Modeling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service
teachers. Computers & Education, 52, 302-312. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006
Türel, Y. K., & Johnson, T. E. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards for
teaching and learning. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 381-394. Retrieved
from http://www.ifets.info
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2013). TAM3: Advancing the technology acceptance model with a
focus on interventions. Manuscript in preparation. Retrieved from
http://www.vvenkatesh.com
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. doi:
10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender,
social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS
Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139. doi: 10.2307/3250981
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, F. D., & Davis, G. B. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478. doi:
10.2307/30036540
160
Wallace, L. G., & Sheetz, S. (2014). The adoption of software measures: A technology
acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Information & Management, 51(1), 249-
259. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2013.12.003
Wang, L., Myers, D. L., & Yanes, M. J. (2010). Creating student-centered learning experience
through the assistance of high-end technology in physical education: A case study.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(4), 352-356. Retrieved from
http://www.projectinnovation.biz/jip
Wang, S., Hsu, H., Campbell, T., Coster, D. C., & Longhurst, M. (2014). An investigation of
middle school science teachers and students use of technology inside and outside of
classrooms: Considering whether digital natives are more technology savvy that their
teachers. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 62(2), 637-662.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9355-4
Wang, Y. S., Lin, H.-H., & Luarn, P. (2006). Predicting consumer intention to use mobile
service. Information Systems Journal, 16(2), 157-179. doi:
10.1111/j,1365-2575.2006.00213.x
Welman, J. C., & Kruger, S. J. (1999). Research methodology for the business and
administrative sciences. Johnnesburg, South Africa: International Thompson.
Wikia Technology. (2013). Generation Z: A look at the technology and media habits of today’s
teens. Journal of Engineering, 1, 1603. Retrieved from
http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctxGeneration_Z_A_Look_At_The_Tech
nology_And_Media_Habits_Of_Today_s_Teens¶mdict=en-US
161
Williams, M.D., Slade, E. L., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2014). Consumers’ intentions to use e-readers.
The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(2), 66. doi:
10.1080/08874417.2014.11645687
Wolk, R. M. (2009). Using technology acceptance model for outcomes assessment in higher
education. Information Systems Educational Journal, 7(43), 3-18. Retrieved from
http://isedj.org
Wong, J. C. J., Ooi, K-B., & Hew, T. S. (2013). Understanding and predicting the motivators of
mobile music acceptance—A multi-stage MRA—Artificial neutral network approach.
Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 569-584. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.005
Wu, J. (2009). A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness in information
technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 419-432. doi: 10.1201/9781420074086-b2
Yasar, O., Maliekal, J., Little, L., & Veronsei, P. (2014). An interdisciplinary approach to
professional development for math, science, and technology teachers. Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 33(s), 349-374. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1036561
Yim, S., Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., & Lawrence, J. F. (2014). Cloud-based collaborative
writing and the Common Core Standards. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
58(3), 234-254. doi: 10.1002/jaal.345
Yin, R. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
162
Yucel, U. A., & Gulbahar, Y. (2013). Technology acceptance model: A review of the prior
predictors. Egitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Dergisi, 46(1), 89-109. Retrieved from
dergiler.ankara.e
163
APPENDIX A
TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND SCRIPT
Hello, my name is Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt. I am an Ed.D candidate at Liberty
University. I am inviting you to participate in a descriptive case study focusing on teacher
technology acceptance and classroom integration in context to a student-supported professional
development model. Throughout this descriptive case study, you will be identified by a
pseudonym that I generate in order for your responses to be confidential. I will be recording this
interview, which you have already provided consent. I am required to keep a transcript of the
recording for a minimum of three years. This interview will be transcribed and you will be
provided with a copy to review for accuracy. At that time, you can clarify responses and make
changes. Once your edited copy is returned to me, I will delete all previous copies. In addition,
I will keep the final copy in a password-protected computer used for research and a password-
protected thumb drive, which will be secured in a locked file cabinet that only I have the key to.
Before we begin the interview, I would like to inform you that this is voluntary; therefore, you
can stop participation at any time. You have the right to decide not to answer any questions. If
you decide to stop participation, your data will be destroyed and will not be used in this study. I
recommend that you answer the questions in a truthful manner and to the best of your ability. If
at any time I feel that you are experiencing discomfort, I will stop the interview.
Audio Recoding: Destruction
You have the right to withdraw participation from this study at any time. In order to
withdraw, you need to notify me that you no longer wish to be part of the study and that you
would like all data associated with you destroyed, to include your audio recording, and not used
in this study. When this is received, I will destroy all data collected from you. There are already
164
specific questions established; however, additional questions might emerge throughout the
interview.
Definitions:
In this descriptive case study, technology will be defined as using the Internet on an
iPad™ or laptop in a classroom environment as an instructional and learning tool. Student-
supported professional development will be defined as teachers receiving and participating in
nine sessions of technology professional development with the students in their classroom.
1. Please describe your teaching experience, beginning with the number of years you
have taught.
2. Please describe your educational background, technology training and implementation
prior to participation in student-supported professional development.
3. What impact has student-supported professional development had on your ability to
use technology in your classroom?
4. Please describe your comfort level using technology in classroom instruction and if
this changed after participating in student-supported professional development.
5. How often do you use technology during classroom instruction to do a task when there
is a feature to help you perform it?
6. To what extent has student-supported professional development impacted your future
use of technology classroom instruction?
7. To what extent has student-supported professional development impacted time
management while using technology in your classroom instruction?
8. To what extent has participating in student-supported professional development
165
provided you with a great deal of experience using technology during classroom
instruction?
I appreciate you taking the time to complete this interview. Your responses will be used
throughout this case study. Do you have any questions that you would like to ask me?
166
APPENDIX B:
ADMINISTRATOR INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND SCRIPT
Hello, my name is Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt. I am an Ed.D candidate at Liberty
University. I am inviting you to participate in a descriptive case study focusing on teacher
technology acceptance and classroom integration in context to a student-supported professional
development model. Throughout this descriptive case study, you will be identified by a
pseudonym that I generate in order for your responses to be confidential. I will be recording this
interview, which you have already provided consent. I am required to keep a transcript of the
recording for a minimum of three years. This interview will be transcribed and you will be
provided with a copy to review for accuracy. At that time, you can clarify responses and make
changes. Once your edited copy is returned to me, I will delete all previous copies. In addition,
I will keep the final copy in a password-protected computer used for research and a password-
protected thumb drive, which will be secured in a locked file cabinet that only I have the key to.
Before we begin the interview, I would like to inform you that this is voluntary; therefore, you
can stop participation at any time. You have the right to decide not to answer any questions. If
you decide to stop participation, your data will be destroyed and will not be used in this study. I
recommend that you answer the questions in a truthful manner and to the best of your ability. If
at any time I feel that you are experiencing discomfort, I will stop the interview.
Audio Recoding: Destruction
You have the right to withdraw participation from this study at any time. In order to
withdraw, you need to notify me that you no longer wish to be part of the study and that you
would like all data associated with you destroyed, to include your audio recording, and not used
in this study. When this is received, I will destroy all data collected from you. There are already
167
specific questions established; however, additional questions might emerge throughout the
interview.
Definitions:
In this descriptive case study, technology will be defined as using the Internet on an
iPad™ or laptop in a classroom environment as an instructional and learning tool. Student-
supported professional development will be defined as teachers receiving and participating in
nine sessions of technology professional development with the students in their classroom.
Definitions
In this descriptive case study, technology will be defined as using the Internet on an
iPad™ or laptop in a classroom environment as an instructional and learning tool. Student-
supported professional development will be defined as students receiving and participating in
nine sessions of technology professional development with their classroom teacher.
1. Please describe your professional and educational background.
2. Please describe technology usage throughout the elementary school prior to student-
supported technology professional development that started in the 2013-14 academic
school year.
3. Please describe your perceptions of teacher comfort level using technology in classroom
instruction and if this changed after participating in student-supported professional
development that began in the 2013-14 academic school year.
4. Please describe your perceptions of student comfort level using technology in classroom
instruction and if this changed after participating in student-supported professional
development that began in the 2013-14 academic school year.
168
5. Please describe how often and at what level you observe technology usage during
classroom instruction in a classroom where student-supported technology professional
development occurred?
6. Please describe how often and at what level you observe technology usage during
classroom instruction in a classroom where student-supported technology professional
development was not conducted?
7. To what extent has student-supported professional development impacted teacher
technology acceptance and integration into classroom instruction?
I appreciate you taking the time to complete this interview. Your responses will be used
throughout this case study. Do you have any questions that you would like to ask me?
169
APPENDIX C:
TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL SURVEY
NOTE: This survey was modified to target classroom instruction with permission from Davis’ (1989) based off of his survey used to evaluate user perceptions towards technology systems.
5 = Strongly Agree 4 = Somewhat Agree 3 = Neither Agree or Disagree 2 = Somewhat Disagree 1 = Strongly Disagree
1. Using the Internet in my classroom can enable me to accomplish tasks more
quickly____________
2. Using the Internet in my classroom can improve my performance____________
3. Using the Internet in my classroom can make it easier to do my tasks___________
4. Using the Internet in my classroom can increase my productivity_________
5. Using the Internet in my classroom can enhance my effectiveness while teaching
__________
6. I find the Internet useful in my teaching _______________
7. Learning to use the Internet in my classroom instruction is easy for me_______________
8. I find it easy to find what I need or want to integrate into classroom instruction from the
Internet______________
9. My interaction with the Internet during classroom instruction is clear and
understandable_____________
10. I find the Internet to be flexible to interactive with when integrating it into classroom
instruction______________
11. It is easy for me to become skillful at using the Internet for classroom instruction
_________________
170
12. I have fun interacting with the Internet in my classroom instruction _________________
13. Using the Internet provides me with a lot of enjoyment during my classroom instruction
___________
14. I enjoy using the Internet in my classroom instruction___________
15. Using the Internet in my classroom instruction bores me____________
16. I always try to use the Internet during classroom instruction to do a task whenever it has a
feature to help me perform it_______
17. I always try to use the Internet in as many cases or occasions as possible during
classroom instruction__________
18. I expect my use of the Internet in my classroom instruction to continue in the
future___________
19. Using the Internet in my classroom instruction can take up too much of my time when
performing many tasks___________
20. When I use the Internet in my classroom instruction, I find it difficult to integrate the
results into my existing work__________
21. Using the Internet for classroom instruction and data collection exposes me to the
vulnerability of computer breakdowns and loss of data_____
22. I have a great deal of experience using the Internet during classroom instruction
____________
23. Number of years using the Internet___________ /Number of years using the Internet in
classroom instruction ____________
171
APPENDIX D: IRB APPROVAL
8/17/2016
Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt IRB Approval 2594.081716: A Descriptive Case Study: Elementary Teachers’ Technology Acceptance and Classroom Integration
Dear Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt,
We are pleased to inform you that your study has been approved by the Liberty IRB. This approval is extended to you for one year from the date provided above with your protocol number. If data collection proceeds past one year, or if you make changes in the methodology as it pertains to human subjects, you must submit an appropriate update form to the IRB. The forms for these cases were attached to your approval email.
Thank you for your cooperation with the IRB, and we wish you well with your research project. Sincerely,
G. Michele Baker, MA, CIP
Administrative Chair of Institutional Research
The Graduate School
Liberty University | Training Champions for Christ since 1971
172
APPENDIX E: Invitation to Participate:
RECRUITMENT NOTICE:
TO PARTICIPATE IN A DOCTORIAL RESEARCH PROJECT Date:
[Recipient]
Dear [Recipient]:
As a graduate student in the Department of Education at Liberty University, I am conducting
research as part of the requirements for a Doctor of Education degree. The purpose of my
research is to inviting you to examine technology acceptance and classroom integration in
context to a student-supported professional development model. I am writing to invite you to
participate in my study.
If you are a teacher whom participated in student-supported technology professional
development provided by me during the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 school year and will willing to
participate, you will
• Complete an on-line survey conducted through Survey Monkey®, which should take
approximately five minutes
• Participate in an approximately 20 minute Face-to-Face Open-Ended Interview
If you are an administrator whom observed student-supported technology professional
development provided by me in the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 school year, and will willing to
participate, you will
• Participate in an approximately 20 minute Face-to-Face Open-Ended Interview
Your participation will be completely anonymous, and no personal, identifying information will
be required.
To participate, complete the Informed Consent and return it to me via e-mail. You will then
receive the Participation Survey and a place where you can suggest a time and date we can meet
to conduct the Face-to-Face Open-Ended Interview.
173
The attached consent document contains additional information about my research. Please sign
the consent document and return it to me.
Sincerely,
Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt
Liberty University Doctoral Candidate
174
APPENDIX F: INFORMED CONSENT
The Liberty University Institutional Review Board has approved this document for use from
8/17/2016 to 8/16/2017 Protocol # 2594.081716
INFORMED CONSENT FORM A DESCRIPTIVE CASE STUDY: ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ TECHNOLOGY
ACCEPTANCE AND CLASSROOM INTEGRATION
Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt
Liberty University School of Education
You are invited to participate in a research study of teacher technology acceptance and classroom integration in the context of a student-supported professional development model that occurred during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school year. Both teacher and administrator cases will be selected in this descriptive case study. Teacher cases were selected because of participation in student-supported professional development during the 2013-14 and/or 2014- 15 academic school years. Administrator cases were selected based on observations of student- supported technology professional development in the 2013-14 and/or 2014-15 academic school years. Please read this form and present any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt, a student/doctoral candidate in the School of Education at Liberty University, is conducting this study. Background Information: The purpose of this study is to examine teacher technology acceptance and classroom integration in the context of a student-supported professional development model. Procedures: If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to do the following based off of student- supported professional development that you previously received: 1. Answer technology usage and demographic questions to include educational background and experiences during a voice recorded interview lasting approximately 20 minutes, and 2. Answer a 23-question, 5-minute survey focusing on technology usage (teacher cases only). 3. I will retrieve teacher observations conducted during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 school year that focused on technology integration. All observations were conducted by me as part of program evaluation and district technology integration into classroom instruction (teacher cases only).
175
The Liberty University Institutional Review Board has approved this document for use from
8/17/2016 to 8/16/2017 Protocol # 2594.081716
Risks and Benefits of Participation:
• The risks are minimal and no more than one would encounter in everyday life. The benefits to participation are:
• Cases in the study will receive no direct benefit. The professional development occurred in the past.
The benefits to society are:
• The possible benefits to society is the contribution to the current and future research of an effective technology professional development model resulting in teacher technology acceptance and integration in classroom instruction. If this technology professional development model is effective then the benefits would be to school districts, teachers, parents, and students. Compensation: You will receive no compensation for taking part in this study. Confidentiality: Any information collected in this study is considered confidential and will be disclosed only with permission from the case or as required by law. The information collected from you will be coded using a pseudonym. The information that has your identifying features, such as your name, will be kept separately in a password-protected thumb drive to which only the researcher has access. One document identifying cases and their pseudonyms will be stored in a separate password protected thumb drive to which only the researcher has the password. Interview audio recording will be conducted using pseudonyms, and records will be secured. Once transcribed, audio recordings will be deleted. All data will be stored for three years then it will be destroyed. After the results are published or discussed, no identifying information will be included. You will be referred to by the pseudonym provided by the researcher. The records of this study will be kept private. In any reports published, information making it possible to identify a subject will not be included. Research records will be stored securely, and only the researcher will have access to the records. Voluntary Nature of the Study: Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to be a case will not affect
176
The Liberty University Institutional Review Board has approved this document for use from
8/17/2016 to 8/16/2017 Protocol # 2594.081716
your current or future relations with Liberty University or your current school district. If you decide to be a case, you are free to not answer any question or withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships. How to Withdraw from the Study: If you choose to withdraw from the study, please contact the researcher at the email address/phone number included in the next paragraph. Should you choose to withdraw, data collected from you will be destroyed immediately and will not be included in this study. Contacts and Questions: The researcher conducting this study is Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt. You may ask any questions you have now. If you have questions later, you are encouraged to contact her at [email protected] or 816-592-9871. You may also contact the research’s faculty advisor, Dr. Jennifer Courduff, at [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher, you are encouraged to contact the Institutional Review Board, 1971 University Blvd, Green Hall Suite 1887, Lynchburg, VA 24515 or email at [email protected]. Please notify the researcher if you would like a copy of this information to keep for your records. Statement of Consent: I have read and understood the above information. I have asked and received answers to my questions. I consent to participate in the study. __ The researcher has my permission to audio-record me as part of my participation in this study. Signature: _____________________________________________ Date: ______________
Signature of Investigator: _______________________________ Date: _______________
177
APPENDIX G:
TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEKLY SESSION CONTENT
Week
Content
Week 1 • iPad™ Introduction • iPad™ Quick Fixes • Weekly Assignment: Familiarize self with the iPad™
Week 2
• Review Quick Fixes • iPad™ App Introduction • Curriculum and App Connection • Weekly Assignment: Use at least one App in classroom instruction to
support curriculum
Week 3
• iPad™ App Review • Google Classroom™ and Curriculum Connection • Google Classroom™ Introduction • Google Classroom™ Log-in • Weekly Assignment: Teacher will create a Google Classroom™, allow
students access, and post at least one assignment that supports curriculum. Have students complete the assignment and post in Google Classroom™.
Week 4
• Google Classroom™ Review • Connecting Curriculum and Google Classroom™ • Google Classroom™ Assignment and Upload Activity • Weekly Assignment: Teacher will post at least one assignment that
supports curriculum in Google Classroom™. Have students complete the assignment and then post in Google Classroom™.
Week 5 • iPad™ Quick Fixes Review • Curriculum and Educreations™ Connection • Introduce and provide instruction on the use of the App Educreations™ to
include drawing, uploading a picture, recording voice, and saving finished project.
• Weekly Assignment: Teacher and students work together to upload a picture, type a sentence, record voice, and save. In addition, the teacher will provide the researcher with ideas as to how projects using Educreations™ can be used to support curriculum and in classroom instruction.
178
Week 6
• Curriculum and Connections to Educreations™ discussion • Review Educreations™ focusing specifically on how to use. • All participants and students create a project with at least three pages
using the App Educreations™. • Introduce options for uploading finished projects using Educreations™
into Google Classroom™. • Weekly Assignment: The teacher participant will create a lesson where
students create a project using Educreations™. The participant will create an assignment in Google Classroom™ that includes the student uploading their Educreations™ project into Google Classroom™.
Week 7
• Curriculum and Questioning Using Technology: emphasizing options for generating questions and discussions using technology.
• Introduce Announcements as Discussion Board in Google Classroom™ • Establish classroom rules and expectations while in an on-line discussion
board forum • Weekly Assignment: After completing a lesson, the teacher participant
will generate and participate in a discussion board with students.
Week 8
• Curriculum and Google™ Presentation Introduction • Curriculum and Google™ Presentation Connection • Google™ Presentation Instruction: How to use it? • Weekly Assignment: Teacher participant will create an assignment in
Google Classroom™ where the student is required to create and then upload the Google™ Presentation into Google Classroom™.
Week 9
Discussion: Review Curriculum and Technology: How can technology be implemented in the classroom to enhance learning and curriculum? Discuss ideas for future technology use in classroom instruction.
179
APPENDIX H
TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL SURVEY PERMISSION FOR USE
Copy of E-mail from Dr. Fred Davis (May 27, 2016) Jenny, You have my permission to modify and use the survey I developed for your research. The only suggestion that occurs to me is that researchers usually average the numerically coded values for the answers to perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use questions, respectively, to compute overall scores or ratings for these constructs. Best wishes, Fred Davis
Copy of E-mail from Jenny Michelle Owens Whitt to Dr. Fred Davis (May 27, 2016)
Dr. Davis: I am seeking permission to use a modified version modified version of the survey developed by you for assessing user perceptions of technology systems in my dissertation. I was wondering if you could provide me with guidance on this journey? I know that you are a very busy man; therefore, I would be appreciating any guidance that you might offer. I have provided the purpose for my study and a copy of my survey below. Thank you for taking the time to read my e-mail. Jenny Whitt Purpose Statement: The purpose of this descriptive case study is to examine teachers’ technology acceptance and classroom integration in the context of a student-supported professional development model at an elementary school located in northwestern Missouri. Survey Questions: TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL SURVEY
(Modified to target classroom instruction) 5 = Strongly Agree 4 = Somewhat Agree 3 = Neither Agree or Disagree 2 = Somewhat Disagree 1 = Strongly Disagree
1. Using the Internet in my classroom can enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly____________
180
2. Using the Internet in my classroom can improve my performance____________ 3. Using the Internet in my classroom can make it easier to do my tasks___________ 4. Using the Internet in my classroom can increase my productivity_________ 5. Using the Internet in my classroom can enhance my effectiveness while teaching __________ 6. I find the Internet useful in my teaching _______________ 7. Learning to use the Internet in my classroom instruction is easy for me_______________ 8. I find it easy to find what I need or want to integrate into classroom instruction from the
Internet______________ 9. My interaction with the Internet during classroom instruction is clear and
understandable_____________ 10. I find the Internet to be flexible to interactive with when integrating it into classroom
instruction______________ 11. It is easy for me to become skillful at using the Internet for classroom instruction
_________________ 12. I have fun interacting with the Internet in my classroom instruction _________________ 13. Using the Internet provides me with a lot of enjoyment during my classroom instruction
___________ 14. I enjoy using the Internet in my classroom instruction___________ 15. Using the Internet in my classroom instruction bores me____________ 16. I always try to use the Internet during classroom instruction to do a task whenever it has a feature
to help me perform it_______ 17. I always try to use the Internet in as many cases or occasions as possible during classroom
instruction__________ 18. I expect my use of the Internet in my classroom instruction to continue in the
future___________ 19. Using the Internet in my classroom instruction can take up too much of my time when
performing many tasks___________ 20. When I use the Internet in my classroom instruction, I find it difficult to integrate the results into
my existing work__________ 21. Using the Internet for classroom instruction and data collection exposes me to the vulnerability
of computer breakdowns and loss of data_____ 22. I have a great deal of experience using the Internet during classroom instruction ____________ 23. Number of years using the Internet___________ /Number of years using the internet in
classroom instruction ____________
181
APPENDIX I:
SAMPLE OBSERVATION NOTES
Objective: Technology Inclusion in Classroom Instruction Setting: (Classroom/Teacher/Subject) Observer: Researcher Role of Observer: Participant Observations Time/Date: Length of Observation: Technology Inclusion Observation Description: Example 02/11/2015: Students were working on making a weather book. As part of the weather book, students were creating an animated video describing the process of either rain, freezing rain, or how snow can change into rain (vice versa) before it hits the ground. The animated video was created using PowToon. Once the videos were published, the link was copied and placed in the students’ weather book. Teacher: “grab your computers. You need to log-n get your PowToons and work on it. Your job today is to log back end, look it over, and then finish it. By the end of lass we will publish PowToon, log into your weather book, and place the link in your weather book.” Reflective Notes: Example 10/2013: This was a scheduled technology implementation observation. Teacher commented that she could show a video, show a picture, and use the elmo and that was the extent of her technology usage. The teacher is not comfortable with technology. Each time the screen went blank, time out period, the teacher made a reference about technology. “Technology is so confusing.” “I am sorry, I just don’t know why it keeps doing that.” “How can I fix this.” “I should have just copied this.” “I have other things to do. This is why I do not use technology.” Example 10/2014: The teacher was able to guide students through fixing minor issues such as turning the volume down and up and home key fixes, but the teacher was unwilling to explore with anything that was not in her comfort level. The item the teacher would not handle was turning the volume on. This skill was covered multiple times during the previous PD where the iPad was introduced. The teacher did not check to make sure that students were where they were suppose to be while working with the iPads. There was no direct content link to the iPad activity. The researcher was under the impression that the iPad was used to keep students focused and occupied while the teacher worked in small groups. Example 02/2014: The teacher did ask the researcher one question for clarity. The teacher asked a specific question about the voice recording on educreations. The teacher asked if clearing the recording on one page would clear all of the recording? The teacher easily asked, answered and redirected questions about the technology side of the assignment. Student demonstrated independence. They were able to complete the tasks observed by the researcher with limited support from the teacher. (Modeled after Creswell, 2008, p. 224)
182
APPENDIX J:
SAMPLE REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
August 16, 2016 (Note to Self): To ensure my bias does not interfere with data analysis, I will
use data that is a direct reflection of each participants’ views and not my own experiences
(Creswell, 2013). In order to do this, I will employ specific safeguards, such as member
checking and acknowledging my personal experiences so that I ensured that the study remains
focused on the participants’ (Creswell, 2013).
September 4, 2016: Reviewed data analysis procedures. Need to reread all data to familiarize
myself with what the participant is saying, what they did, and what occurred during observations.
Address personal bias.
October 3, 2016 (Note to Self): Member checks occurred, which consisting of the review of
interview manuscripts and findings. I also asked specific prepared questions and did not interject
any of my opinions. Peer reviews and reflective notes were used as tools to reduce potential
influences of my bias on any data collected and analyzed.
November 1, 2016: Finish second round of coding. Look for: Sort data and categorize.
Remember that NVivo software does not code. It notes frequency. I need to label and code.
Code each participant as an individual and then as a whole for reoccurring themes.
February 2017: Four Themes
183
APPENDIX K:
PRIMARY THEMES AND SUBTHEMES
Primary Themes Subthemes Related to Primary Themes Skill and Knowledge Development • Skill Developed to Maximize Usage
• Student Skill and Knowledge (Pre) • Student Skill and Knowledge (Post) • Teacher skill and Knowledge (Pre) • Teacher Skill and Knowledge Post • Student Need to Acquire Skills • Student and Teacher Confidence Improved • Teacher Fear of not Enough Skills • Teacher and Student Skills Need to Increase • Skills Change Classroom Instruction • Technology Skills
Lack of Use Prior to Intervention/Professional Development
• Experience • Prior to Student-Supported Technology • Primarily Played Games • Computer Lab for Fun Only • Limited Technology Acceptance • Limited Technology Usage (Classroom) • Primarily Overhead Projector • Unused Technology Throughout School • Basic Technology Skills • Personal Usage, but Limited Classroom • Prior Technology Professional Development
Not Integrated into the Classroom
Successful Experience with Technology • Experience • Resulted from Student-Supported Professional
Development • Perceived Usefulness • Perceived Ease of Use • Intent to Use • Actual Use • Teachers Impressed with Students • Daily Usage Increased • Enhanced rigor and Creativity • Impact on Student Learning and Instruction • Improved Accountability • Increased Productivity • Cross-Curriculum Impacts • Various Levels of Technology Integration • All Students are Learning • Students on Task • Troubleshooting with Students • Student Independence • More Options to Display/Complete Work • Increased Problem-Solving, Communication,
and Classroom Management
184
• Accessible and Advantages • Student and Teacher Expanded Technology
Skills • Content Easier: Ex. Research • Improved Teaching • Effects of Technology
Evidence of Acceptance and Integration • Prior to Student-Supported Technology
• Creating Animated Videos • Technology Usage in the Classroom • Carts no Longer Sitting Unused • Technology Used to Instruct Students • Teachers are willing to Use Technology • Increase in Student and Teacher Acceptance • Prior: Technology Integration was Minimal • Post: Problem-Solving Skills and Upper-Level
Critical Thinking Demonstrated • Changes in Teacher Attitudes (Proud) • Acceptance of Technology Due to Being
Progressive • Virtual Books: Creating Pictures and Text and
Reading the Text • Understanding of the Role Technology Plays
in Student Learning • Engaging • Enhanced Student Learning • Teachers went from Fear to Give Me More • Continued Usage Past Student-Supported
Professional Development • Confidence Boost • Technology: Overhead Projector, iPads,
laptops, Internet, specific apps, and Programs • Model: Teacher Lead to Student Lead • Collaboration During Technology Integration • Educreations • Observations of Technology Integration • Projects Demonstration Higher-Level
Thinking • Apple TV • Weather Books (Science) • Acceptance and Integration
