An Assessment of Middle School Teachers' Efforts to Integrate Technology Effectively

An Assessment of Middle School Teachers'

Efforts to Integrate Technology Effectively

Section 1: The Problem

Introduction

In a technology-driven world, teachers are educating a generation of tech-savvy

students using 20th century teaching methods in the 21st century. A study conducted by

Hosseini and Kamal (2013) found that in spite of its availability and accessibility,

computer technology is still not being used for teaching to the full extent possible. It

seems as though teachers are experiencing difficulty in effectively integrating computer

technology into existing curricula (Hosseini & Kamal, 2013). The problem in the school

that was the focus of this study is not due to lack of available computers, as there are

thousands of computers throughout Texas public and private school systems for the

purpose of integration into the curriculum. The federal government under Title II Part D

of No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) provided much of the funding for this

technology. NCLB (2002) was established for the purpose of improving students’

academic achievements through the use of technology. In addition, NCLB contains

requirements concerning student literacy in technology: Section 2402, Title II, Part (b)

(2) (A) stipulates that every student shall demonstrate technology literacy by the end of

the eighth grade (NCLB, 2002). When teachers integrate technology into the

curriculum, students are able to improve their technology literacy through hands-on

application and teacher modeling.

In this mixed method project study, I aimed to investigate EFG Middle School

(pseudonym) teachers’ descriptions of their competency in the current National

Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). The study also investigated

the role of technology at EFG Middle School in the following areas:

1. Use of technology to support teaching

2. Use of technology to support student learning

3. Situations under which more technology would be used

4. Specific technology trainings teachers have taken

The data for this project were collected through surveys that include a self-report

quantitative portion, with a secondary, open-ended qualitative portion. EFG Middle

School is a Title I school that is in the ABC Independent School District (pseudonym),

which is one of the largest school districts in Southeast Texas. With over 1,200 students,

EFG Middle School employs 100 teachers to deliver instruction across the curriculum.

Since 2007, EFG Middle School has been classified by Texas School Technology and

Readiness (STaR) chart as being advanced in area of technology infrastructure, which is

one of the chart’s four focus areas. The State of Texas uses the STaR chart as a tool to

help campuses and districts determine their progress toward meeting the goals of the

Federal Long-Range Plan for Technology. Despite this recognition, EFG Middle School

has remained in the developmental stage in the remaining three focus areas of the STaR

chart:

1. Using technology to teach and learn

2. Educator preparation, and development

3. Leadership, administration, and instructional support

Remaining in the developmental stage is problematic because it indicates that

the technology is not being integrated to the extent desired by the state and the local

district. Adequate technology exists in most schools for teachers to use technology in

the classroom, but some teachers do not seamlessly integrate technology (Texas

Education Agency, 2012).

When unenthusiastic teachers use technology, it is used to sustain their current

teaching practices rather than reform them (Karasavvidis, 2009). The ABC Independent

School District’s technology plan calls for reformed teaching methods that include an

increase in the frequency and level of technology use. Texas Essential Knowledge and

Skills (TEKS; see Appendix C) are the state standards for what students should know

and be able to do. These standards are assessed in Section TL5 of the Texas STaR chart

(see Appendix B). The technology application portion of the TEKS is the framework for

the integration of technology into the students’ learning experience. When technology is

coupled with the technology-based elements of the TEKS content, the student has

substantial opportunity to use technology to assist in learning.

In his introduction to the Visions 2020 Report, former Secretary of Education

Dr. Rod Paige noted,

Indeed, education is the only business still debating the usefulness of

technology. Schools remain unchanged for the most part despite numerous

reforms and increased investments in computers and networks. The way we

organize schools and provide instruction is essentially the same as it was when

our Founding Fathers went to school. Put another way, we still educate our

students based on an agricultural timetable, in an industrial setting, but tell

students they live in a digital age. (U.S. Department of Education [DOE], 2005b,

The Plan section, para.

A 2010 Educational Media and Technology Yearbook indicated that the

studentto-Internet-connected computer ratio in the United States stood at slightly lower

than 3.7 students per computer. In addition, a report in the Computers & Education

Journal noted that 96% of all instructional computers in schools are equipped with

high-speed Internet connections (Ertmer, 2012). The Journal of Literacy and

Technology published a study (Lawrence, 2014) that suggested a disconnection between

teachers’ perception of literacy and their integration of technology into the secondary

classroom. The results of the study supported the practice of integrating technology as

part of everyday lessons to foster students’ 21st-century learning. To increase the

integration of technology, teachers need to be adequately trained on how to integrate

technology into their daily lessons. Many teachers feel that they do not have necessary

training to incorporate technology into the classroom (Davis, 2010).

Definition of the Problem

According to the ABC Independent School District’s technology plan, EFG

Middle School should be classified as Target Tech (the highest level of technology

integration) on the STaR chart key area of Teaching and Learning as well as Educator

Preparation and Development by the year 2014. The State of Texas’s Long-Range Plan

For Technology (LRPT, 2008) states that as an indicator of progress, campuses should

currently be at the Target Tech level for each of the four key areas (technology

infrastructure; using technology to teach and learn; educator preparation and

development; and leadership, administration, and instructional support; LRPT, 2008).

Although some campuses have reached the Target Tech level, the State of Texas

requires all campuses to be at that level by the year 2020. Since 2003, EFG Middle

School has consistently been classified as developing tech and advanced tech in the

areas of teaching and learning as well as educator preparation and development.

Despite its advanced technology infrastructure, EFG Middle School has

remained below the targeted stage in three out of four focus areas assessed by the STaR

chart. The chart below shows that EFG Middle School maintained only a 25%

developing rating while the district and the state maintained a higher rating. The Texas

STaR chart ratings for EFG Middle School indicate that the school has had technology

infrastructure in place for years but consistently fails to integrate technology across the

curriculum. This rating is an indication of EFG Middle School’s need for improvement

in the integration of technology. The State of Texas’s technology application standards

require students to be technology literate by the end of eighth grade. Currently, the data

from the STaR chart show that less than 50% of the students at EFG Middle School

have mastered the technology application requirements that are set by the Texas

Education Agency (see Appendix C). This is measured through teachers’ daily

interactions with students and technology and is noted on the Texas STaR chart under

teaching and learning in Section

5 (see Appendix B)

On EFG Middle School’s 2014 STaR chart survey, teachers reported a lack of

technology integration in the classroom (see Appendix B). The State of Texas provides

school districts with funding to improve achievement using technology at the

elementary through secondary level of education with the expectation that all students

will be technologically literate by the end of eighth grade. However, the lack of

technology integration reported by EFG Middle School teachers on the STaR chart does

not align with state or district expectations.

In this age of technology, the United States’ education system is lagging behind

in the need to educate students using 21st-century tools (Stansbury, 2011). Industries and

students are ahead of teachers in the use of technology (Moore, 2013). For teachers to

use technology, they must believe that technology can help them reach the students of

this generation (Chen, 2010). Studies have shown that the integration of computers and

related information technology can yield great rewards. In a study conducted by Stanley

(2013), results showed a significant improvement in the scores of 250 students who

took part in the study. According to the study, regression results showed that with the

integration of technology, students’ exam performance improved significantly. The

improvements were consistent over the course of the one-semester study. In a different

study, 103 sixth grade students were divided into groups for the purpose of observing

the impact of technology on their learning performance. The group that received the

technology-enriched lesson showed the most growth (Chang, Chen, & Hsu, 2011).

Despite the studies, the integration of computer technology by EFG teachers has not led

to a significant increase in daily use to meet the learning needs of this generation to

transition into the workplace.

Many teachers are not providing effective technology integration in the

classroom because of lack of training, experience, personal beliefs, anxiety, attitude,

and their ability to use technology (Lambert, Gong, & Cuper, 2008). In a related study,

teachers had access to computers in their classroom but their lack of technology training

resulted in students primarily using computers for drill and practice, for special

activities, or as a reward, rather than in meaningful instruction that impacted student

learning. Teachers resorted to using computers as special activities in part due to

inadequate computer access (Masters, 2010). Based on the results of this study, I plan to

develop a project that will assist teachers with integrating technology into their daily

lessons.

Rationale

Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level

The Texas Teacher STaR chart has been developed around the four key areas of

the Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020: Teaching and Learning; Educator

Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration and Instructional Support;

and Infrastructure for Technology. Within the key areas, there are focus areas that

target specific areas of technology integration. The Texas Teacher STaR chart produces

a profile of Texas campuses’ status toward reaching the goals of the LRPT and NCLB

based on profile indicators that place each campus at one of four levels of progress in

each key area of the LRPT. The profile indicator on the Texas Teacher STaR chart is

the level of progress that teachers mark on an individual STaR survey in relation to the

focus areas. The ratings for the four key areas are based on the total number of points

scored on subgroups within the key area categories, which are called focus areas. The

point system is as follows:

•6-8 = Early Tech

•9-14 = Developing Tech

•15-20 = Advanced Tech

•21-24 = Target Tech

The local problem is the teacher-reported lack of technology integration in the

classroom as indicated on the STaR assessment. Despite the advanced rating in

technology infrastructure, the STaR chart report shows that some teachers did not

consistently integrate technology into their curricula (see Appendix D). Lack of

technology integration can have a negative impact on student achievement. Student

achievement is increased when computing devices such as desktops, laptops, and tablets

are used as essential tools (Norris, 2012).

According to the STaR chart data, all three classifications being compared need to

improve in each key area to reach the STaR rating of Target Tech. Despite its efforts,

EFG Middle School’s rating remains lower than the rating of the district as well as the

rating of the State of Texas. In an effort to meet the State of Texas’ goal of technology

integration to improve student learning, it is vital that EFG Middle School take the

necessary steps to reach the ideal rating of Target Tech. Remaining in the

developmental stage is a problem because it indicates that technology is not being

integrated to the extent desired by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. Students are

not receiving the needed and expected technology-based education. Although the

district and state have a rating that is higher than that of EFG Middle School, they also

have areas that need improvement. The 2013-2014 data was examined because it was

the most recent data available from the State of Texas. In 2012-2013, EFG Middle

School’s classification changed to Advanced Tech in three categories while the school

maintained a rating of Developing Tech in the area of Educators’ Preparation and

Development.

The following table compares EFG Middle School’s key area ratings with those

of other schools in the district as well as the State of Texas.

Table 1

EFG Middle School STaR chart Results

Key area

EFG school area

STaR

classification,

2013-2014

ABC district

middle school area

STaR

classification,

Texas area STaR

classification,

2009-2010

I. Teaching and

Learning

Advanced Tech Developing Tech Developing Tech

II. Educator

Preparation and

Development

Developing Tech Developing Tech Developing Tech

III. Leadership,

Admin.,

Instructional

Support

Advanced Tech Advanced Tech Advanced Tech

IV. Infrastructure

for Technology

Advanced Tech Advanced Tech Advanced Tech

Based in part on the consistent results from the STaR chart, the ABC Independent

School District in its Technology Plan acknowledges the following needs:

•To increase the frequency and level of utilization of technology in the

teaching and learning process.

•To maintain and increase the level of professional development necessary to

assist teachers in using technology effectively in the teaching and learning

process.

•To update and enhance its technology infrastructure consistent with the

Texas

STaR chart.

•To support the teaching, learning, professional development, and

administrative needs of the district.

ABC Independent School District’s technology plan referenced David

Thornburg, a nationally recognized educational technology visionary, who stated that

“we must prepare learners for their future, not our past” by providing opportunities to

utilize technology in their learning experiences. In an effort to address the problem of

technology integration, ABC Independent School District created a Technology Vision

Statement to clearly communicate its goal. The vision statement states, “As an integral

part of the teaching/learning process, instructional technology will facilitate students’

active learning and prepare them to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world.”

The vision statement is based on the following belief statements (Anthony, 2011):

•Technology facilitates the acquisition of the characteristics as defined in the

Portrait of ABC School Graduate (Appendix H).

•Technology assists students in posing problems, conducting critical inquiry,

and developing informed insight in order to become effective

communicators in a global community.

•Technology is a tool that provides students an opportunity to examine and

evaluate ideas, images, and concepts from different perspectives.

•Technology may be used to address the learning needs of all students in a

variety of flexible grouping arrangements that facilitate student-centered

learning.

•Technology is one of many effective tools that allow teachers and students to

be partners in the learning process.

•Technology can provide access to both historical and current resources that

would not otherwise be available in the classroom.

•Technology and student needs are constantly changing, therefore demanding

flexibility in long-range planning.

•Decisions to invest in instructional technology must reflect consideration of

efficiency, effectiveness, and financial resources.

•Required staff development is critical if technology applications are to be

effectively integrated into the teaching/learning process.

DeJaeghere’s (2009) statement that “the one-size-fits-all approach to teaching

and learning does not meet the educational needs and goals for all students” validates

ABC District’s belief statements. The value of educational technology to equalize the

learning environment is evident. The Journal of Computing in Teacher Education

published an article that stated, “today’s students are technology-savvy, and feel

strongly about the positive value of technology, and rely upon technology as an

essential and preferred component of every aspect of their lives” (Lei, 2009, p. 23).

These statements are driving factors that encompass the core beliefs in the Portrait of a

District graduate. The Portrait of a District graduate is a district’s document that

explains the characteristic of its students.

Evidence of the Problem From the Professional Literature

Modern students live in a digital society that demands an education requiring

decision-making and problem-solving skills (Hoffman, 2010). According to Warschauer

and Matuchiak (2010), students in classrooms today have grown up in a

technologydriven world where information is just a click away. Students view

acquisition of information differently from the previous generation. Today’s students

know how to access information for free via the Internet and other electronic sources.

Consequently, instant information piques their interest in the world around them in

addition to connecting them to the world in a meaningful way. They seek to solve

problems connected to their understanding of the real world (Levy, 2009).

When teachers do not integrate technology, they are at a disconnect with

students whose everyday lives are connected to technology sources such as social

media, instant messaging, chat rooms, educational software, and the Internet. When

disconnected, teachers are unable to help students make the vital connection between

their lives and their educational experiences. Secretary of Education Duncan stated,

“Our nation's schools have yet to unleash technology's full potential to transform

learning. We're at an important transition point. We need to leverage technology's

promise to improve learning” (as cited in McDonnell, 2011, p. 304). If educators

continue to disregard the need for technology integration into the curriculum, the

youth’s ability to maximize their potential will continue to be hindered.

Definitions

Computer technology: “When a teacher or student uses a computer as a learning

tool, it is referred to as computer technology” (Morrison & Lowther, 2005, P.17).

Diffusion of innovation: “Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is

adopted and accepted by members of a certain community” (Rogers, 1995, P.25).

Innovation: “For the purpose of this study, innovation refers to instructional

technology as a learning tool” (Texas Education Agency, 2006, P.203).

Integrated/integration : “Use of technology by students and teachers to enhance

teaching and learning and to support curricular objectives” (Texas Education Agency,

2006, P.203).

Interactive communications: “Two-way communications that may be

synchronous or asynchronous and are distinguished by mutually active responses. In

online learning, interactive communications refers to a learning environment that

includes a significant amount of discussion and other forms of communications between

teachers and students that are enabled by technology. Examples include an Internet-

based listserv, class newsgroups, discussion boards, or chat features” (Texas Education

Agency, 2006, P. 204).

Long-Range Plan for Technology (LRPT): “Texas plan for integrating

technology into the school system. Four key areas are Teaching and Learning; Educator

Preparation and Development; Leadership, Administration, and Instructional Support;

and

Infrastructure for Technology” (Texas Education Agency, 2006, P.204).

Pedagogical support: “Support by the administration that includes providing

teachers with the skills necessary to integrate technology and professional development

to give the teacher information to use technology for effective teaching and learning,

and giving instructional support to teachers who integrate technology in their

classrooms” (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). (Texas Education Agency, 2006, P.

204).

State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC): The state board that oversees all

aspects of public school educator certification, continuing education, and standards of

conduct.

School Technology and Readiness (STaR) chart: “An online resource for

selfassessment of campus and district efforts to effectively integrate technology across

the curriculum. This rubric serves as the standard for assessing technology preparedness

in Texas K-12 schools. This chart has been updated to align with the new Long-Range

Plan for Technology, 2006-2020” (Texas Education Agency, 2006, P. 204).

Technology Applications Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS):

“Technology Applications is the curriculum area that defines what all students should

know and be able to do with technology in Grades K-12” (Texas Education Agency,

2006, P. 204)

Technology literacy: “The ability to responsibly use appropriate technology to

communicate, solve problems, and access, manage, integrate, evaluate, and create

information to improve learning in all subject areas and to acquire lifelong knowledge

and skills in the 21st century. The Technology Applications curriculum defines the

technology literacy requirements for students and teachers specified in NCLB Title II,

Part D” (Texas Education Agency, 2006, P. 205).

Texas Campus STaR chart: “A tool designed to help campuses and districts

determine their progress toward meeting the goals of the Long-Range Plan for

Technology, as well as the goals of their district. The Texas Campus STaR chart also

assists in the measurement of the impact of federal, state, and local efforts to improve

student learning through the use of technology” (Texas Education Agency, 2006, P.

205).

Traditional methods of teaching: “Methods of teaching that include lecture,

student-centered discussion, tutorial, and teacher-led instruction are traditional” (Frye,

Ketteridge, & Marshall, 2008, P. 31).

Significance

Due to the rapid advancement of society’s dependence on technology, it has

become essential for EFG Middle School teachers to keep pace with technological

developments. The learning environment of the 21st century has dramatically changed

with the advancement of technology. Over the next 10 years, researchers anticipate that

personal, portable, and wirelessly networked technologies will become ubiquitous in the

lives of learners—indeed, in many countries, this is already a reality (Looi et al., 2010).

Prensky (2009) referred to today’s generation of learners as digital natives: the first

generation to grow up in the age of technology. Digital natives are eager to explore new

technology to help them grow (Cabanero-Johnson, 2009). Technology plays a valuable

role in today’s educational system and should continuously be used as a tool to advance

students’ learning. The integration of technology by today’s teachers is mired by lack of

successful development opportunities in the constructs of technology and pedagogy

(Levin & Wadmany, 2008).

Many educators see the use and integration of technology as a problem (Ertmer,

2010), but Newkirk (2006) recommended that teachers see technology as a valuable

resource and embrace it. Prensky (2005) stated that “today’s kids are challenging us,

their educators, to engage them at their level” (p. 64) by integrating the technology that

they use daily into the curriculum. The availability of technology has been significantly

increased within schools and households. However, the literature continues to show a

disconnect between the need for technology integration and the actuality of

implementation of technology in classrooms for the purpose of supporting teaching and

student learning (Ertmer, 2010). According to the STaR chart, EFG Middle School has

the technology in place, but the level of integration is deficient. Despite the progress of

technology integration into the curriculum, it is either relegated to the margins of the

school day or left until “after state testing is over” (Ravitch, 2011). In order for

technology to be effectively integrated into the curriculum, it has to be a key component

in the lesson-planning stage. Donlevy (2006) suggested that “as the newer technologies

emerge into view, students, teachers and administrators should be incorporating them

into daily teaching and learning practice” (p. 122). Schools can increase their

effectiveness in preparing students for the real world by purposely integrating

technology rather than just using it on a superficial level. It is not rare that new tools

and technologies introduce new challenges and problems (Spector, 2010).

Guiding/Research Question

For the purpose of developing a project for the local setting, this mixed method

project study investigated EFG Middle School teachers’ descriptions of their

competency in the current National Education Technology Standards for Teachers

(NETS-T). The study also investigated how EFG Middle School teachers were using

technology to support teaching, and student learning situations in which teachers would

use more technology, and specific technology trainings teachers have taken. The NETS-

T survey was used to address the primary research question, and the subsequent

research questions were measured on interval scales based on mixed method attributes.

Primary Research Question

Do teachers believe they are competent in technology standards and the

integration of technology?

Subsequent Research Questions

1. How do EFG Middle School teachers describe their level of competency in

the National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T)?

2. Is there a relationship between the teachers’ level of competency and the

amount of professional development taken?

3. What situations do EFG Middle School teachers think would help increase

technology integration?

4. How does number of technology training classes relate to teacher self-

reported technology usage?

The research design included a self-report data collection technique and the use

of descriptive and inferential statistics to analyze the survey findings. The mixed-

methods part of this study involved addressing the qualitative information gathered

through the

NETS-T Survey. The qualitative data was analyzed using open-ended coding. Through

data gathered in the open-ended questions, I created response categories that were used

to label each comment accordingly. This process assisted with identifying patterns and

trends associated with teachers’ technology use, which rendered a final analysis.

Effective teachers model and apply NET standards as they design, implement, and

assess learning experiences to engage students and improve learning; enrich

professional practice; and provide positive models for students, colleagues, and the

community. (ISTE, 2008)

The ISTE's NETS for Teachers (NETS•T) are the standards for evaluating the

skills and knowledge educators need to teach, work, and learn in an increasingly

connected global and digital society. The NETS-T has five categories:

1. Facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity

2. Design and develop digital-age learning experiences and assessments

3. Model digital-age work and learning

4. Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility

5. Engage in professional growth and leadership

The Texas Teacher STaR chart was created for the purpose of assisting all classroom

teachers in assessing needs and setting goals for the use of technology in the classroom

to support student achievement.

Both the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) national

standards and the Texas School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart state standards

support technology integration for the purpose of gaining greater depths in learning.

ISTE identifies the targeted goals teachers are to achieve in the NETS-T. The state of

Texas developed the Texas School Technology and Readiness (STaR) chart to help

schools identify the level of technology application each teacher has. The Texas

Education Association wants teachers to reach the ‘Target Tech’ level which means

teachers are able to use technology to guide students to use and develop higher-order

thinking skills. This study investigated the relationship between teachers’ competence

in the use of technology and their practice of integrating technology into their

curriculum. The standards of the NETS-T and the STaR chart are very similar, in that

the NETS-T areas of facilitate and inspire student learning and creativity, design and

develop digitalage learning experiences and assessments, and promote and model

digital citizenship and responsibility have similarities to the STaR chart’s teaching and

learning. Additionally, the NETS-T areas of model digital-age work and learning and

engage in professional growth and leadership have similarities to the STaR chart’s

educator preparation and development.

In his article “Our Digital Conversion,” Edwards (2012) wrote, “building a

culture where adult learning is the norm is vitally important to our digital conversion”

(p. 4). In an effort to understand the relationship between individual staff development

and level of competency, an investigation was conducted. To conduct the investigation,

I used data collected from the teacher technology training section on the NETS-T

survey to identify the following:

•The amount of training received

•Whether the trainings were based on teacher use or student use

•Correlations between technology trainings and level of technology use

Teachers were asked to indicate the number of times they attended technology

staff development trainings based on a list of known trainings for EFG Middle

School’s campus. At this point, the amount of time that teachers spend attending

technology staff development and their competency appear to have a connection.

Based on the findings, more technology staff development opportunities could

be established with the intent of equipping teachers for greater levels of success.

Review of the Literature

For the review of the literature, I used print and electronic resources retrieved

from the Walden University online library, Prairie View A and M University Library

located in Prairie View, Texas, and Harris County Public Library in Cypress, Texas. In

addition, I accessed the following online research databases as part of this search:

ProQuest Central, Education, and Technology. My initial search included the following

terms: education or educator, secondary, and technology. That search yielded 28

articles. I conducted a second search and included the following term: staff

development. That search yielded 15 articles. The years searched in both cases primarily

ranged from 2010– 2013. My third search included technology, teacher’s perception,

and integration and spanned the years 2010-2014; this yielded 29 articles.

According to the Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of

Education (2010), our daily lives have become centered around technology. According

to Ahmet, Bulent, & Cemalettin (2011), the integration of technology can yield great

benefits in the areas of teaching and learning.

The integration of technology must be provided to students through engaging, powerful,

and meaningful learning experiences. Technology is not only motivating, but through

its use, literacy learning is enhanced (Hansen, 2008). Ahmet et al. (2011) report that the

integration of technology have motivated students to do more through technology in

order to improver their level of success I school. Building a 21st century learning

environment requires a technological infrastructure that can evolve with the constant

changing technology tools (Jones, Fox, & Levin, 2011). When technology

infrastructure is in place, teachers tend to fall into one of the five categories described

within diffusion of integration theory.

Theoretical Base

Diffusion of innovation was the theoretical base for this study (Rogers, 1995). In

this section of the literature review, I examine the traits of diffusion of innovation in

relation to the following: (a) the factors affecting the rate of technology adoption by

teachers, (b) teachers' attitudes and pedagogical beliefs toward technology, (c)

characteristics of exemplary technology teachers, (d) instructional methodology used by

exemplary technology teachers, (e) administrative support of technology use, and (f)

technology training received by teachers and its influence on effective computer

integration in the classroom.

Factors Affecting the Rate of Technology Adoption by Teachers

Lack of Staff Development

In terms of technology adoption, what defining characteristics do novice users of

technology in the classroom and nonusers of technology have that signify their

differences? Technology-based staff development can make a difference with the proper

implementation. Support of staff development programs can be gained through the

knowledge of adoption theories that can assist district and school administrators in

identifying early adopters as well as late adopters when preparing teachers to adopt and

consistently integrate technology into their curriculum design. Rogers analyzed more

than 900 research papers of college students to identify characteristics of adopters vs.

nonadopters. Based on his analysis, Rogers categorized the adopter by socioeconomic

status, personality traits, and communication behavior characteristics. Rogers (1995)

based his research on experiential investigation and market research that indicated that a

person's rate of adoption could be influenced by conditions that included exposure to

technology, personal innovative ability, and socioeconomic status. At the introduction

of a new innovation, an individual forms an attitude after mentally initiating the

decision process of recognizing the innovation. Diffusion theory was derived from a

synthesis of more than 3,100 publications on diffusion of innovation and a wide range

of research on the topic (Straub, 2009).

Rogers' (1995) theory of the diffusion of innovation defines diffusion as “the

process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time

among the members of a social system”. The terms early adopters, late adopters, and

late majority are categories from diffusion of innovation theory (Murray, 2009; Rogers,

1995). Within this theory, people are divided into five categories in relation to their rate

of technology adoption:

1. Innovators: These pioneers tend to be quite adventurous and very willing to

strike out beyond the bounds of their customary networks to make new

contacts and learn new things.

2. Early adopters: These buyers tend to be more rooted in the local matrix of

social relationships than the innovators are. Because they are both respected

and “normal,” they tend to be models for others.

3. Early majority: These adopters think carefully and long before adopting an

innovation. They rarely lead, but they often endorse an innovation’s

acceptability.

4. Late majority: These skeptics only adopt after they have seen the innovation

at work and watched the consequences.

5. Laggards: Individuals in this category are the last to adopt an innovation.

Within the diffusion of innovation theory, there are four main elements:

innovation, communication channels, time, and social system. The rate at which

technology is adopted is different for all teachers. In an article on innovation,

Harmancioglu (2009) discussed Rogers’ theory of diffusion and defined innovation as

“an idea, objects, or practices that are perceived as known by an individual or other unit

of adoption” (p. 229). In this study, innovation can be defined as instructional

technology as a learning tool.

In the Republic of Kenya, a study was conducted to examine the extent to which

technology training influenced secondary mathematics teachers’ decisions to adopt or

not adopt technology in classroom practice. Data from the study confirmed the

hypothesis that teachers with the least amount of staff development would have the

lowest level of technology adoption. The findings of this study revealed that technology

staff development training and the continuing support of good practice were among the

greatest determinants of successful technology adoption (Kamau, 2014).

Dr. Alison Schleede conducted a study of the Mooresville Graded School

District in Mooresville, NC who in 2007 jumpstarted its initiative to provide three-

dimensional education across the district. Teachers were given laptops a year in advance

in an effort to familiarize them with the technology. The initiative eventually placed

laptops in the hands of over 5,000 students and over 500 educators in Grades 3 through

12. Schleede (2011) conducted a dissertation study to investigate effective professional

development models and strategies needed to successfully implement a digital learning

environment. The findings of her investigation confirm the importance of professional

development as well as the desires of teachers to have more input. Teachers who

participated in the study indicated that the professional development received was not

relevant enough to meet their needs (Schleede, 2011)

In a different study involving Mooresville Graded School District, it was

discovered that teaches understood the need to integrate technology into the curriculum

but lacked the necessary training to do so. According to Marsh (2012), support training

was provided in two summer technology institutes that included differentiated

professional development on digital applications and strategies for using digital

technology in the classroom. Despite the trainings, a high percentage of teachers

indicated that they did not know how to meet their professional obligation to help

students develop a global understanding, to meet the diversity needs in their classrooms,

or to demonstrate the relationship between core content and 21st-century skills (Marsh,

2012).

Teo (2009) theorized that teacher attitudes play a role in motivating teachers to

learn to use a new technology prior to actually learning or using it. The study found that

negative attitudes could be overcome, as they tend to lack conviction. He concluded that

attitudes are not a contributing factor in the total variance of technology usage and that

there is a need for more information on teachers’ current abilities and classroom

routines using technology. A similar study conducted by Aldunate (2013) indicated that

attitudes, skills, and practices are considered to be interrelated variables and that

relationships among them are significant. Aldunate’s study included 85 teacher

participants and indicated that teachers who are technologically inclined and regularly

take the time to integrate technology will be more open to new technology adoption.

Innovation

Innovators are the first to adopt new technologies and do so without pressure

(Dearing, 2009). Innovators are normally risk takers who have high socioeconomic

status. Innovators tend to serve as role models for those in all other categories (Rogers,

1995). Technology adoption is a process that is very different depending of the

technology used and level of comfort. When innovators and early adopters are not

involved in the new waves of technology, it negatively impacts technology adoption

(Aldunate, 2013). Early adopters are a group that adopts technology almost

independently of its complexity.

The second group of adopters is the early adopters (Rogers, 1995). Like the

innovators of the first group, early adopters are generally more educated and more

sophisticated than those in the remaining three groups. Early adopters and innovators

are in the middle socioeconomic class, which allows them to acquire the latest

technologies faster than late adopters, who are generally in the lower socioeconomic

class. Early adopters search for information about new innovations more assertively

than late adopters and have greater exposure to mass media than late adopters do. In

addition, they are people who are open to trying new ideas. They readily accept change

and maintain a positive attitude regarding technology and its integration. Early adopters

are sought after more than any other rate of adoption category for their wisdom and the

guidance they provide for those in the late adopter categories (Giannopoulou, 2010;

Rogers, 1995). Early adopters can sometimes be viewed as the trendsetters for

innovations. When new technology innovation is viewed as credible by early adopters,

the technology likelihood of implementation and acceptance by the mainstream is

greatly increased. In the diffusion process of new innovations, it is extremely important

that the early adopters' perceptions of new technology are sought. Therefore, ample

time should be given to early adopters for the purpose of exploring new innovations at a

rate that gives them sufficient time to make an informed opinion. Early adopters that

support new innovations are more prevalent in an environment that is rich in

curriculum-based, sound educational practices that are connected to classroom practices

(Rogers, 1995;Greve, 2009).

The early majority adopter is comprised of one-third of the members of the

adoption system, which is the largest adoption category in Rogers’s theory of the

diffusion of innovations. Early majority adopters interact frequently with their peers,

but differ from the early adopters in that they are not often seen as opinion leaders.

Unlike early adopters, early majority adopters deliberate and discuss before adopting

new ideas (Rogers, 1995; Weaver, 2008).

Although late majority adopters may give their approval of an idea after their

peers have been successful with the new technology, they are reluctant to adopt the new

technology until pressured by their peers (Rogers, 1995; Hixon, 2012). Most members

of the late majority possess low technology skills and are in low to middle class

socioeconomic groups. When pressured and innovation is perceived as required, the

probability of a late majority adoption increases (Rogers, 1995; Looma, 2012).

Providing a supportive environment is the best way to promote a more accepting

climate for adoption by reluctant groups.

The final adoption group is the laggards. Laggards are traditionalists who are

extraordinarily localized, may be isolated from their own society, and are often in the

lowest economic class. Laggards are usually not opinion leaders, and they isolate

themselves from others. Skeptical of innovations, laggards’ process to adopt

innovations is very lengthy (Rogers, 1995).

The decision to either reject or adopt the introduced technology is made by the

individual. Adopting the innovation is stronger than accepting the innovation because it

shows that the individual likes the innovation and adopts it wholeheartedly. The

decision to accept or adopt the innovation has a great impact on level of use. Morales,

Knezek, and Christensen (2008) suggested that teachers’ attitudes have an impact on

technology efficacy based on the type of technology being used, and the grade level

being taught. According to the findings of Morales et al.’s (2008) study of elementary

and middle school teachers conducted in Mexico (n = 972) and Texas (n = 932), middle

school teachers were more proficient in applications like Microsoft Word processing,

and Microsoft Excel spreadsheets in the Texas sample, whereas teachers in Mexico

matched their skill level only on singular applications, as a participant reported, “I feel

confident that I could make my own World Wide Website homepage” (p. 139).

Teachers' Attitudes and Pedagogical Beliefs Toward Technology

Teachers consider numerous factors when making the decision to integrate or not

to integrate technology into their teaching curriculum. Factors include accessibility to

hardware and software, self-efficacy, professional development, administrative support,

pedagogical beliefs, time constraints, technical support, and personal rate of

innovativeness of adoption. Based on evidence, self-efficacy for computer use as a

learning tool may be a considerable factor in determining technology integration

(Lambert, 2008). In addition, having time to implement technology in their classes,

technological support, and access to technology does not automatically mean teachers

will use technology effectively in their classrooms (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwitch, &

York, 2007). A teacher's attitude toward technology is often an impediment to

integration. Computer use in the classroom is seen by many teachers to be disruptive to

their normal teaching practices and to require valuable time to implement (Blin, Munro

2008)

Because of teachers’ attitudes towards technology integration, there are a large

number of teachers using technology to accomplish administrative tasks rather than

incorporating it as an integral part of their daily instruction. In a study using integrated

mixed methods conducted by Palak and Walls (2009), the following was evident: (a)

teachers use technology most frequently for preparation, management, and

administrative purposes; (b) teachers' use of technology to support student-centered

practice is rare, even among those who work at technology-rich schools and hold

student centered beliefs; and (c) teachers in technology-rich schools continue to use

technology in ways that support their already existing teacher-centered instructional

practices

(p.436). Palak and Walls (2009) concluded that future technology professional training

programs need to be centered on the incorporation of technology into student-focused

teaching while constructing various contexts, which emphasize technology integration.

Thus, Palak and Walls (2009) recognized contradictions in the literature, and studied

teacher beliefs to investigate their instructional technology applications. A more recent

case study conducted by Kurt also shows that teachers use technology for

administrative purposes, technology education, non-educational purposes, instructional

preparation, teacher-directed instructional delivery, student homework, and instructional

assessment (2012). Despite the numerous progressions in technology development,

over the past twelve years, technology integrations haven’t advanced dramatically in

education. This literature review confirms the fact that the research of years past is still

true today in that a great amount of technology use in education is still to accomplish

administrative task rather than strong integration into daily lessons.

The spectrum in which technology is integrated occurs at different levels,

ranging from word data processing to research and problem-solving software. Along

this range of technology lie teachers who utilize technology for the purpose of Internet

searches, to complete assignments, and to perform drill and practice via computer

technology. In 2009, the National Center for Educational Statistics in Washington, DC

conducted a study in which a survey of teachers in the K-12 school systems was used.

Teachers reported that they or their students used computers in the classroom during

instructional time often (40 percent) or sometimes (29 percent). Teachers reported that

they or their students used computers in other locations in the school during

instructional time often (29 percent) or sometimes (43 percent). According to this data,

half of the teachers that utilized computer technology and Internet for instruction and

student assignments mainly used it for drill and practice, word-processed documents,

spreadsheets, and Internet research. Half of the teachers that used computer technology

involved students in using it for problem solving and data analysis. Teachers who were

early adopters of technology integration into the instruction benefited from technology

in their classrooms. In contrast, teachers who were less prone to use computer

technology were limited to using computer labs. The survey also illustrated that 62% of

teachers with more than four computers in their classrooms used them for integration

into the curriculum compared to 29% of teachers with only one computer. In the 2009

NCES survey, teachers with at least one computer in the classroom reported that their

students used computers during instructional time; often (29%), sometimes (43%), or

not at all 28% (Gray et al., 2010). A known obstacle that prevents teachers from

integrating technology into the curriculum is the low computer to student ratio. When

the number of available computers to student ratio is unbalanced, the likelihood of

teachers integrating computers in their curriculum is diminished (Acemoglu, 2010).

This situation has been in existence since the beginning of technology integration and

has continued to be an obstacle over the years. A study was conducted in which 348

full-time faculty members of the University of Georgia were given a survey in an effort

to identify barriers they faced in the integration of computer technology into their

curriculum. Eighty nine percent of the faculty surveys identified the limited availability

of technology as a major barrier to the integration of technology into the curriculum

(Beggs, 2000; Sokura, 2007). The quantity of technology available does not play a

large role in the teachers’ attitudes towards technology integration (Albion, 2001;

Gibbone, 2010). A case study conducted by Ertmer, Gopalakrishnan, and Ross (2000)

showed that the limited number of computers did not deter the integration of technology

by some teachers. Teachers were able to provide students with an opportunity to use

technology in the curriculum because of school wide planning strategies. In a similar

case study using pre-service teachers, Hsiao (2009) concluded that teachers are more

likely to integrate technology when trained and given time to plan the technology

integration.

Teachers’ prior experiences and beliefs about computer capabilities can greatly

influence their willingness to integrate technology into their curriculum (Paraskeva,

2008). Teachers with a low level belief in the benefits of technology integration most

often depended on strategies that were effective when used in a prior lesson and as a

result, they were not as willing to integrate new innovations as those with a greater

belief in the technology. Medvin, Reed, and Behr (2000) conducted a study that

included 38 teachers of a Head-Start program with a low level of belief in the use of

technology integration. The conductors of the study found that the teacher’s curriculum

included technology integration less often and associated an increased level of anxiety

when technology was used. The study consisted of a pre-test and a post-test in which

teachers received hands- on staff development training and follow up support in

technology. AlMehrzi (2011) supported these findings when he noted that teachers tend

to follow the teaching path that they believe in (Al-Mehrzi, 2011). A suggestion from

the study of Medvin, Reed, and Behr's (2000) stated that teachers with low levels of

belief toward technology would benefit from hands-on technology staff development

that would increase their knowledge and comfort toward technology integration.

Medvin, Reed, and

Behr's finding validates earlier studies conducted by Woodrow (1992) and Albion

(1999). Educators that understand the impact that technology can have on the

education of today’s technology driven students are more likely to incorporate it into

their curriculum (Coffland & Strickland, 2004). Van Braak's (2001) conducted a study

that investigated the relationship between computer use in the classroom and

influencing factors on an individual level, such as age, gender, teaching in technology

related subject areas, general computer attitudes, attitude towards computers in

education and, technological innovativeness. Subjects of this study were identified as

236 secondary school teachers familiar with computer use in the educational setting. It

was noted that the teachers were Dutch-speaking educators with positive attitudes

toward computers technology and its impact on education. The study found that male

teachers were more involved in classroom use of computers than female teachers. In

2010, Sang conducted the same study as Van Braak but with the central focus on

student teachers (Sang, 2010). The findings of Sang’s study validate the results

discovered in Van Braak’s earlier study. Attitudes toward computers and

confidence in the educational use of computers are two major predictors in teachers’

future technology use in the classroom (Abayomi, 2009; Myers & Halpin, 2002;

Yildirim, S., 2000). A vast amount of educators are in favor of integrating technology

into their curriculums, but they are hindered by their inability to effectively integrate

technology as well as their lack of confidence (Abayomi, 2009; Myers and Halpin

2002). Basham (2012) conducted a study in which the purpose was to examine the

effectiveness of a constructivist-based technology-training model for educators who

taught special education. The study looked at the effect as 34 teachers pursued change

in their individual teaching techniques and processes. In the study, teachers were split

in to two groups and given the task of integrating technology into their curriculums with

the assistance for the first group from the technology coordinators and other qualified

technology users who served as mentors. The support from the technology coordinators

and other qualified technology users not only included mentors for the teacher but also

technology training in the classroom as well as in computer labs.

The technology training received by the teachers included the use of three

online Macromedia Flash-MX based tutorials and three hands-on cooperative based

learning experiences. At the end of the study, teachers acknowledged a positive change

in attitude in regards to the use of computers that was reflected in increased integration.

Results indicate that the framework led to a significant perceived gain in National

Educational Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) ability (p = .001).

Another project conducted by Godzicki (2013) utilized strategies to promote the

effective use of technology in the classroom. The study was a five-month program in

which 116 participants were provided technology training, hands-on experience, and

continuous classroom technical support. One of the main components of the program

included the contributions made by the teachers during a five-month period. During that

time, teachers were asked to use their knowledge of the curriculum to assist in the

creation and development of curriculum based projects that they would implement into

their classrooms. Teachers’ interests in computer use in the classroom were peaked and

as a result, they became more aware of new pedagogical techniques that could be used

when integrating technology. After participating in eight hands-on, collaborative

workshops, Godzicki found that most of the teachers’ technology skills had increased,

they were more comfortable with technology, and increased their use of the Internet.

Teachers must be willing to experiment with technology, explore various uses of

technology, and take risks. (Marwan, 2010)

Teachers who believe in the sound benefits of technology's impact on students'

learning and who possess a positive attitude toward technology use in their classrooms

are more apt to implement the technology on a regular base. When the technology skills

of teachers are strengthened, their level of comfort in the use of that technology in their

curriculum increases. Technology-competent teachers will use technology in their

instruction regardless of the number of computers available (Liu, Maddux, & Johnson,

2008).

Characteristics of Exemplary Technology Users

Teachers who are considered to be exemplary technology-using teachers are

often teachers who "achieve meaningful technology use in learner-centered,

constructive environments despite the presence of both internal and external barriers"

(Ertmer et al., & York, 2006-2007, p. 55). In reviewing the literature, Saleh revealed

that teacher' attitudes, personal beliefs toward computers, disposition, ability to change

and, pedagogical philosophy contributed to successful technology integration (2008).

There are many factors that contribute to the successful integration of technology in the

classroom (Onojaefe, 2009). In an effort to identify best practices, a descriptive study

of how exemplary technology-using teachers use technology in their classroom was

conducted (Eartmer, 2012). The study included twelve K-12 classroom teachers

identified as exemplary technology-users. The study, focused on several areas of

instructional design that included targeting teaching techniques, inconsistencies in

teacher beliefs, actual teaching practice, and students' use of technology. Teachers that

include technology into the instructional design are more likely integrate it into the

lesson. Results suggest close alignment; that is student-centered beliefs undergirded

studentcentered practices (authenticity, student choice, collaboration). Additionally,

most teachers indicated that internal factors (e.g., passion for technology, having a

problemsolving mentality) and support from others (administrators and personal

learning networks) played key roles in shaping their practices. Teachers noted that the

strongest barriers preventing other teachers from using technology were their existing

attitudes and beliefs toward technology, as well as their current levels of knowledge and

skills

(Eartmer, 2012).

Teachers can be more effective in integrating technology into the instructional

design when they are properly trained. In a survey conducted by Clark (2013), teachers

reported that attending technology-based staff development trainings was beneficial;

however one of the most important elements in the development of their technology

integration skills was independent learning and practice rather than a group-guided

process. In addition, self-learning was described as the most significant way of

technology skills acquisition by sixty-one percent of the exemplary technology-using

teachers identified. This validates the notion that exemplary technology users are

selfguided learners. Similarly, findings by Eartmer et al., (2006-2007) suggest that

intrinsic factors such as resolving to use technology in the classroom curriculum, self-

confidence in technological abilities (as opposed to technology resources), and time for

planning and developing lessons are key factors which influence most exemplary

technology teachers' effectiveness in integration. Furthermore, Ermter et al., (2006-

2007) suggest that the desire to help students grasp real life concepts in the learning

process is a driving force in exemplary technology-using teachers.

Exemplary technology teachers used a constructivist approaches to integrate

technology in the classroom. An important component of constructivist theory is to

focus a child's education on authentic tasks, which have “real-world relevance and

utility, that integrate those tasks across the curriculum, that provide appropriate levels of

difficulty or involvement," (Akyol, 2010, p.66-68; Jonassen, 1991). It would be

impossible for all learners to become masters of all content areas, so "instruction is

anchored in some meaningful, real-world context" (Akyol, 2010, p.66-68; Jonassen,

1991). In the nonconstructivist approach, students mainly use computers for typing and

desktop publishing, which utilizes problem-oriented learning activities and

collaborative work. Students in a constructivist classroom use the computer for

research, writing, multimedia authoring programs, and desktop publishing (Berg et al.,

1997; Hermans, 2008; Judson, 2006).

A national survey of elementary and high school teachers revealed that

computerusing teachers most often have more experience in teaching, more computer

training, and a larger number of college course credits and degrees (Becker, 1994; Inan,

2010). The conclusion of this survey was reconfirmed in the case study of self-

proclaimed exemplary technology users (Eartmer's et al., 2010) that concluded that the

exemplary technologyusing teachers have various levels of teaching experiences and

computer training. Exemplary technology-using teachers appeared highly self-

motivated, confident in their technology abilities, and most of all believed in the use of

technology as a tool for "achieving their visions of teaching and learning" (p. 3). This

study used purposeful sampling to select the 78 participants that were involved in this

study. In an effort to examine the similarities and differences among the technology

practices and pedagogy beliefs, a multiple case-study research design was used. All data

were collected through the teachers’ webpages as well as through interview.

A study conducted by Clark (2012) revealed that exemplary technology-using

teachers invested personal time to enhance their technology skills. The study included

20 teachers from various elementary and secondary schools in North Carolina. Their

study illustrates that effective implementation of technology requires technology

training, and suggests that teachers should be allowed the necessary time to practice the

skills acquired. The level of integration of technology into the curriculum depends on

the teacher’s attitude towards technology. The findings of a study conducted by

Stephanie Tweed (2013), supports the earlier study that was conducted by Clark.

Tweed’s data revealed from forward multiple regressions shows that the teachers with

the greatest selfefficacy tend to push toward a student-centered environment (2013).

The study included 124 teachers from two school districts grades k-5. The study also

concluded that the amount of time spent in technology training, the amount of personal

time applied to technology training, and willingness to accept change are considered to

be three main factors which can be used to predict which classrooms computers are

used. As a means of improving technology use in the classroom, teachers may find it

beneficial to integrate technology into the daily instruction when they are provided

sufficient time to learn, practice, and reflect upon newly acquired technology skills

(Gorder, 2008). Vannatta and Fordham validated these findings and expressed the need

for teachers to have adequate time to practice existing and new technology skills

(Knezek, 2008).

Sleeter (2012) conducted a case study that examined school's technology staff

development programs. The targeted areas of improvements included teacher

discussion, teacher reflection, and meetings that referenced curriculum-specific goals

for technology integration. The teachers reinforced the findings of this study confirming

their belief in the benefits of technology integrating into the instruction. The study also

concluded the teachers that used the constructivist method focused on the organization

of materials and its content based on the students’ prior knowledge. Teachers used the

constructivist method in an effort to provide students with a hands-on approach to

learning that required them to, in conjunction with technology, use problem solving

skills as well as higherorder thinking skills to solve the problem (Forsbach-Rothman,

2007). The teachers’ focus was primarily on the applicable use of technology

integration to support the goals of the curriculum (Sleeter, 2012).

Albion (2008) conducted a study was of over 4,000 U.S. teachers in an effort to

examine their educational background, individual teaching philosophy, and instructional

practices of technology-using and non-technology-using teachers (Albion, 2008). As

part of the study, teachers were grouped into four categories based on their level of

professional engagement. The teachers classified as having a higher level of

professional engagement were considered to be the teacher leaders. A common trait of

the teacher leaders was their high level of interaction with their peers, both in and out of

school. They believed and modeled the life long learner and self-reflective practice, as

indicated by reports from their workshop presentations, peer mentoring, and teaching at

the university level. Teacher professionals were not defined as ones to take on the

leadership role like the teacher leaders. Teacher professionals were defined as active

learners beyond the classroom in which they taught, but lacked the desire to interact and

share ideas with peers.

Teacher professionals can be found second on the continuum of levels of

professional engagement. On the same continuum, interactive teachers were listed as

third. Teachers classified as interactive teachers were considered interactive with their

peers, but not at the same interactive level as with teacher professionals. Private practice

teachers who reported little or no engagement in a professional dialog or activities beyond

those mandated were fourth on the continuum (Albion, 2008; Center for Research, 2000).

The study noted the habits of the teacher leaders included attending more selective

schools, investing more personal time to continuous learning, and investing twice the

amount of professional time than the private practice teachers. Teacher leaders and

teacher professionals were the two categories of teachers that employed more of the

constructivist methods of instruction and practice into their teaching and learning

environments.

In similar research conducted by Albion (2008), questions of whether there

"was a relationship between the use of computers and teachers' beliefs and practices"

was posed (p. 33). Based on the questioning, the teacher leader category prevailed as

the strong, talented leaders that really embraced the integration of technology as a result

of the strong beliefs in constructivist learning as a powerful learning tool and in

technology as a tool that can be easily adopted into the constructivist practice. The

strong teachers in the technology leaders category continually invested their time to

learn how to use the computer as a learning tool in their classrooms. As a result of

seeing the benefits of computer assisted learning, other teacher leaders adopted a more

constructivist approach to the use of technology.

Exemplary technology-using teachers generally are highly motivated teacher

leaders who are confident in their technology skills and believe that technology

enhances student learning. Many exemplary technology teachers use the constructivist

approach prior to their technology use.

Instructional Methodology Used by Exemplary Technology Teachers

According to the data compiled by the Office of Technology (Guzey, 2009), the

majority of teacher education faculty believed that technology was not just a "passing

phase" but would have a significant impact in education and teacher education.

However, teachers have been reluctant to make changes in their instructional strategies

and pedagogical practices to accommodate instructional technology. Change in

educational practices requires teachers to adjust their "beliefs and practices to a certain

degree" (Donaldson & Knupfer, 2002, p. 89; Kessler, 2010). Change is difficult for

many teachers, but to achieve the highest levels of success with technology integration,

old methods of instruction should be replaced with a student-centered learning

environment (Donaldson & Knupfer, 2002; Kessler, 2010).

Significant changes must occur in order for technology to be used effectively in

the classroom. Technology can affect the teaching, learning and disseminating of

information in a classroom environment. A classroom's culture can change with the

adoption of technology use (Kleiman, 2009). For this reason, some teachers can see

change as a barrier when it comes to integrating technology into their teaching

practices. Changing teaching methodology and instructional strategies involves time

and a restructuring of established practice. According to a literature review of studies,

teachers can’t be expected to change their pedagogical beliefs to encourage technology

right away.

Changing pedagogical beliefs is a difficult process that can be achieved over time

(Keengwe, 2009). Frailich’s (2009) research on the impact of theories of learning and

instructional strategies on teachers' adoption of technology suggests that teachers must

be provided effective technology training, professional development, and support. Are

there instructional strategies effective classroom teachers currently use which, when

combined with technology, can enhance student learning?

Technology integration and instructional strategies described in Marzano’s

(2009, pp. 30-37) meta-analysis study of over 100 reports on instructional strategies

suggests nine strategies which could lead to student enhanced learning: a) identifying

similarities and differences; b) summarizing and note-taking; c) reinforcing effort and

providing recognition to students; d) homework and practice; e) nonlinguistic

representations; f) cooperative learning; g) setting objectives and planning feedback; h)

generating and testing hypotheses; and i) cues, questions, and advanced organizers.

These instructional strategies are easily integrated with technology to help improve

student learning. Traditional instruction alone does not create an environment

adequate to meet the technological demands of the twenty-first century. Teachers' roles

will need to change from purveyors of knowledge to facilitators of knowledge and, in

doing so, create a nonlinear learning environment, which encourages critical thinking

skills and collaboration among peers (Wheeler, 2008).

As more and more teachers strive to meet the demands of the twenty-first

century, they will need to adopt more innovative student-centered instructional styles to

accommodate 21st century technologies as they work to educate students for the future

(Hirumi, 2002; Nasim, 2011). For example, according to Becker (2001) and Keengwe

(2009), teachers who incorporate technology to improve student learning have a more

constructivist teaching philosophy and are competent with their computer skills. In

comparison to teachers who engage in a traditional philosophy of instruction,

constructivist teachers use the computer more frequently and in more demanding ways

as they have their students gather and analyze information. Coupling computers and

other technologies such as video and multi-media recordings with traditional methods

of instruction provides learners with more content and depth than do traditional methods

alone (Amiel, 2008).

Integrating Technology for Inquiry lesson model (NteQ) is a systematic planner

that provides a structure for teachers who use technology as a learning tool (Lucey,

2009). In this model, students use technology to solve problems and analyze data. This

type of learning environment relies upon higher level thinking skills and requires

students to use knowledge and skills that replicate the workplace. For an environment

like this to take place, the authors suggest teachers experience using the computer as a

learning tool and understand how students learn in regard to the technology being used.

As this scaffolding process unfolds, the teacher can establish a student-centered,

multidimensional learning environment.

Studies indicate that technology should be used as a learning tool to support

students' academic achievement (Tseng, 2012; Fonseca, 2014; Gibbon, 2014). For

technology to positively affect student learning, the instructional environment needs to

change from a traditional model to a more student-centered environment. An

environment where technology supports learning will need to "involve more student

interaction, more connections among schools, more collaboration among teachers and

students, more involvement of teachers as facilitators, and more emphasis on

technology as a tool for learning" (Tseng, 2012, pp. 102-115). Using technology in the

classroom only to accomplish a "task" does not promote meaningful learning. The

teacher should use technology to evaluate and synthesize information. Students are

"empowered" when student-centered instruction is coupled with meaningful technology

(Kessler, 2010). In classrooms where technology is being used effectively, students are

using computer software and other technologies to analyze data and solve problems.

Teachers in these classrooms use student-centered learning approaches like

constructivism where technology is viewed as a learning tool. Classrooms using

technology have moved away from traditional models of teaching to student-centered

ones, focusing on the teacher as a facilitator of knowledge.

In a recent study, Thompson (2013) surveyed 388 freshmen a school in the

Midwest in an effort to determine if there are any correlations between the use of

technology and students’ learning. During the study, t-tests were used to search for any

connections. As a result, positive relations were discovered between patterns in the use

of technology and student learning. At a time when brains are still developing, todays’

generation of students’ lives is being saturated with digital media. As a result, several

popular press authors suggest that media use has profoundly affected students' abilities,

preferences, and attitudes related to learning using traditional methods (Rideout, 2010).

In 2013, a quasi-experimental research study was conducted in an effort to identify

correlations of blended pedagogical teaching approach and student success in lesson

retention. The study included 128 freshman students that were divided into two groups

with the same characteristic for the purpose of establishing a control group. The

experimental group benefited from technology integration and significantly outscored

their counterparts on assignments (Safar,2013)

Administrative Support of Technology Usage

Campus administrators play a key role in technology development on their

campuses, beginning with creating a school culture where teachers are given the

opportunity to experiment with other teaching methods and to practice using technology

in their classrooms. Part of creating this environment is providing teachers with the

opportunity to learn new technologies and instructional strategies as they are supported

and celebrated in their endeavors and success (Chapman, 2010). The Milken Exchange

on Education Technology suggests administrators need to be modeling effective

technology to support learning and administrative tasks. Clearly not all administrators

operate at the same level of technological competency. The Fullan (2013) literature on

education technology suggests three stages at which administrators function. Stage one

is considered the entry stage where the principal and school community began

understanding educational change, but little evidence exists to suggest the learning

environment has been changed by technology. Stage two is defined as the local change.

During the local change, teachers integrate technology into their teaching practice

(Fullan, 2013). At this stage the principal uses basic administrative and educational

technologies. The principal becomes a better leader with technology training and sees

that technology supports the current teaching practices and learning. As the principal's

knowledge of effective technology instruction increases, there will also exist a need for

the principal to learn how to implement new technology and instructional

developments. Stage three, the transformation stage, occurs when technology is used to

change learning practices. At this stage the principal has the ability to effectively

evaluate a teacher's integration of technology and make instructional suggestions

(Fullan, 2013). Fullan study closely follows Milken’s 1999 study which is still

relevant today because with advancements in technology and a generation that thrive on

technology, there is an even greater need for administrators to be aware of the benefits

of involving the faculty in all stages of the change process. Schools where teachers are

encouraged to collaborate, reflect, and discuss ways technology can be used to enhance

learning are more apt to discover avenues leading to environments conducive to

technology integration (Chapman, 2010). Principals who ask their teachers to reflect

upon their practice and technology use may find new ideas on ways to integrate

technology more effectively (Vanderlinde, 2010).

Now is the time for state, school, and district administrators to inform and

provide guidance to teachers as technology is rapidly changing the world around us.

School administrators need to facilitate teacher readiness by providing quality

opportunities for growth (Conrad, 2011). Opportunities for growth can include online

learning courses, increasing technology resources and accountability, access to research,

proven technology examples, and professional development.

When administrators lead by example, it makes it easier to get buy-in from the

teachers (Marwan, 2010). Administrators need to lend two types of technology support

to their faculty: 1) instructional and 2) technical. Instructional support includes training,

support, and advisement in the areas of pedagogical ideas, instructional strategies, and

effective teaching methods. Technical support includes providing current hardware and

software, technology resources, professional development, and personal technical

support (Ronnkvist, Dexter, & Anderson, 2000; Glazer, 2009).

A principal's role is to be supportive of technology usage, and willing to provide

the necessary assistance and resources to teachers in need. Principals who regard

technology positively attract teachers who regard technology positively. Principals'

attitudes toward technology have an effect on teachers' attitudes toward technology as

well (Coffland & Strickland, 2004; Lui, 2011). Along with the attitude boost, teachers

need the support of their building level administrators to provide the necessary

hardware and software in their classrooms so they can successfully implement

technology in their instruction.

Administrators need to involve teachers in the change process, for teachers are

at many different levels of technology readiness. Technology professional development

and support systems will be more effective when the principal assesses his or her

faculty's technology readiness (Barone & Hagner, 2001, pp. 5-7; Natho, 2010).

Technology Training Received by Teachers

Effective professional development programs can produce more effective

teachers and increase teacher quality. Quality teaching has been linked to improved

student performance (Wenglinsky, 2000; Stronge, 2011). However, funding for

technology frequently goes toward the purchasing of hardware and not to technology

training (Sandholtz, 2001; Hanson-Baldauf, 2009). Sparks and Hirsch's (2000) research

concluded that effective professional development provides the opportunity for teachers

to connect pedagogy to content. Teachers should be provided with opportunities to

collaborate with other educators to plan and develop new strategies, skills, and different

forms of assessment on a regular basis. The Arkansas Department of Education

Information and Technology Plan 2000 (2000) began rallying for these views over

twelve years ago and the need is still true today. Teachers need effective professional

developments that are based on teachers’ needs; involve learning, collaboration and

modeling (Gibson, 2012). In addition, The Arkansas Department of Education

Information and Technology Plan 2000 indicated teachers should be given "hands on

learning, time to experiment, easy access to equipment and availability of support

personnel who can help them be effective users of technology" (Arkansas Department

Education, 2000, p. 18).

The 2004 National Technology Plan provided by the U. S. Department of

Education and the Office of Educational Technology received input from over 1,500

individuals, including organized groups from educational associations, federal agencies

and industrial representatives (U.S. DOE, 2010d). Data were compiled from surveys

conducted by the groups as well as consensus activities. The 2004 National Technology

Plan titled Toward a New Golden Age in American Education indicated that the

problem with lack of technology integration in the classrooms was not necessarily a

lack of funds, but a lack of adequate training for teachers. In 2010 that plan was updated

and named

The National Education Technology Plan, Transforming American Education: Learning

focus on instructing teachers to understand how to incorporate computers to enrich the

learning environment, but simply modeled how to use them as tools. Furthermore, the

report revealed that state and local school districts are learning how to restructure

existing finances to accommodate the 21st century calling for technologically equipped

21st century schools. The National Education Technology Plan calls for applying the

advanced technologies used in our daily personal and professional lives to our entire

education system to improve student learning, accelerate and scale up the adoption of

effective practices, and use data and information for continuous improvement (US

Department of

Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2010). Despite this growing awareness,

Cullen’(2011) study of 67 teachers indicated that the teacher's commitment to integrate

technology into the curriculum was the result of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation with

positive attitudes toward technology use. A national study conducted by the United

States

Department of Education's Integrated Studies of Educational Technology revealed only

48% of teachers surveyed indicated they felt well prepared to integrate technology in

their instruction, despite the billions of dollars provided to schools from the federal,

state, and local levels (U.S. DOE, 2007).

Hanson-Baldauf (2009) studied two separate types of teacher development

programs: a private computer company and a professional development program of a

public school district. Both professional development programs recognized these

elements as key components of effective technology programs: the importance of the

teacher's role in the planning and choice of technology training; administrators' support

and participation; teacher in-class time to implement technology with students; adequate

funding; a constructivist environment in which to learn; hands-on, authentic learning;

and collaboration with peers. Participants in the study valued creating materials that

could be used with technology in their own classrooms Hanson-Baldauf (2009).

Similar findings were found in (Sandholtz, 2001) and Reiser's study (2002), which

indicated one of the main factors influencing teachers' use of technology integration is

support and access to computers, regardless of the effectiveness of the technology

training provided. When teachers are not provided computer access, time to

practice newly learned technology, administrative and hardware support, and funding,

their likelihood of using technology is hindered (Reiser, 2002). In contrast, when

teachers are not constrained by lack of computer availability, administrative support,

and technical support, they generally implement the technology plans constructed in

their training (Ronnkvist, Dexter, & Anderson, 2000; Glazer, 2009). Available

technology does not necessarily translate into technology use nor does self-proclaimed

technology support. Successful integration of technology occurs when administrators

provide instructional and pedagogical support, quality technology leaders and trainers,

and the time and opportunity for hands-on learning opportunities. Professional

development and administrative and technical support must be present for effective

technology integration

(Ronnkvist, Dexter, & Anderson, 2000; Glazer, 2009).

Perhaps there is not a greater witness to the lack of technology readiness and

technology professional development of teachers than American students. Students in

grades K-12 responded to an online survey conducted by NetDay (2004), a national

nonprofit organization that promotes the effective use of technology in American

schools. NetDay researchers indicated that students reported that their teachers lacked

technology expertise. A sixth grade student stated: "I think that we [schools] could give

technology classes to students and teachers because our teachers are falling behind the

students, as they aren't good with computer programs and software" (p. 21).

Training is essential in the development of technology-ready teachers. Most

teachers have received very little formal technology training and less direction on how

to use, orchestrate, and connect the available technology to content and instruction.

Technology training should not be a piecemeal approach, but should emphasize

technology as a pedagogical tool and relevant to all subject areas (Office of Technology

Assessment, 2012).

Implications

The integration of technology can sometimes be overwhelming for new users.

When asking educators to use technology that they have never used or have not become

comfortable with, some teachers may require more training than others. As shown in

Table 2, through the research, I plan to use research questions one and two to identify

teachers that are in need of technology help. Research question three was used to gain

insight into the teachers’ need for better technology integration. The fourth research

question was used to determine which staff development trainings were most beneficial.

Table 2

Research Question Usage

Research question Planned usage

1. How do EFG

Middle School

teachers with

advanced and above

rating classify their

use of technology

on the STaR chart to

support their

teaching and student

learning?

2. Is there a

relationship between

the teachers’ level

of competency and

the amount of

professional

development taken?

3. What situations do

EFG Middle School

Teachers think

would help increase

technology

integration?

4. How does

number of

technology

training classes relate to teacher self-

1. To

identify

teachers

that are

in need

technolo

gy help.

2. To

identify

ways to

increase

teachers’

competen

cy.

3. To gain

insight

into the

teachers’

need for

better

technology

integration.

4. To

determine

which staff

develop

ment

trainings

were

most

beneficia

If the data support the assumptions, professional development training may be created

to address the needs of teachers that lack the necessary skills. When adjusting to

technology integration, it is important to focus on the following objectives

1. Increase teachers' comfort levels for using technology

2. Support technology integration through group member

3. Identify and use expert teachers to provide training and mentoring for group

members

4. Assess technology use often and modify plans to accommodate additional

instructional needs.

Effective professional development programs are best structured when

teachers have an input on the design (Frost, 2013). Support and participation in

technology training by the building administrators is also important. For

professional development to have the most chance of success, teachers need a

constructivist learning environment, hands-on training, and peer collaboration

(Frost,2013). Professional development serves as a nice underpinning, but to be

successful, administrators need to provide teachers with instructional and

pedagogical support and sufficient time and opportunity for hands-on learning.

Summary

Many barriers exist which dissuade teachers from using computers in

their classrooms. Through Section 1, I defined the problem as well as provided

evidence of the problem at the local level and through professional literature. I

have researched and provided a review of literature that examined the factors

affecting the rate of technology adoption by teachers, teachers' attitudes and

pedagogical beliefs toward technology, characteristics of exemplary technology

teachers, instructional methodology used by exemplary technology teachers,

administrative support of technology use, and technology training received by

teachers and its influence on effective computer integration in the classroom. The

need to increase the integration of technology into the curriculum is greater now

than any other time. In a world where technology has become an integral part of

our everyday lives, its transition into the classroom lesson can yield numerous

possibilities such as addressing the need for more innovative learning, which will

engage students and help all students to learn in deeper, more connected, and

more meaningful ways. Tools such as games, online databases, mobile

computing, multimedia, social networking, simulations, sensors, web resources,

virtual reality, and more promise new kinds of learning that are more engaging

for students and more relevant to the world they will be living in and creating.

Data collected by the state of Texas indicates that EFG Middle School

has the necessary infrastructure to integrate technology across the curriculum

but fails to consistently do so. This study aimed to investigate EFG Middle

School teachers’ descriptions of their competency in the current National

Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). The study also

investigated how EFG Middle School teachers currently use technology to

support their teaching and student learning ABC School District seeks to

have technology integrated throughout the curriculum at all grade levels. The

goal of ABC School District is to continuously update the technology

infrastructure at EFG Middle School in an effort to provide the necessary

technology for teachers use in the integration of technology. It is EFG Middle

Schools desire that all teachers become exemplary users of technology.

In addition, EFG Middle School recognizes that all teachers may not fit

into this exemplary category. Some teachers are impeded by barriers such as pre-

existing conditions cited as rate of adoption, attitude and pedagogical beliefs

toward technology, type of instructional methodology used in teaching,

administrative support, type and amount of technology training, and the type and

amount of technology available in classrooms. Effective professional

development and administrative support can have an impact on breaking down

those barriers for teachers. Teachers who are trained to use technology in the

classroom will help students make the connection between what they are

learning and the digital society in which they live. Twenty-first century students

will need to be technology-savvy and have the problem solving and analytical

skills to be successful in the job market.

The literature review calls for schools to adequately train their teachers in

technology integration with ongoing support. When teachers have access to

effective professional development in technology, they are better equipped to use

the technology in their teaching.

In section 2, I discuss the methodology used for this mixed methods project

study including the research design and sample size.

Section 2: The Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of this mixed methods project study was to investigate how

EFG Middle School teachers currently use technology to support their teaching

and student learning. As part of the project study, teachers provided descriptions

of their competency in the current National Education Technology Standards for

Teachers (NETS-T). The results of the survey yielded information on the

technological needs of EFG Middle School that may inform for future

technology staff developments and trainings. The survey included a self-report

quantitative portion, with a secondary, open-ended qualitative portion as well.

Research Design and Approach

The research design was mixed methods and included the collection of

selfreported data in two forms: qualitative in the use of open-ended questions

and quantitative in the use of standardized questionnaires. The mixed methods

approach was selected with the intent of making it possible to compare

similarities and differences between the trainings and teacher-reported

information and the analysis of the openended responses (Creswell, 2009). In

addition, the mixed methods approach provides corroboration and greater

strength of understanding. By combining the information gathered from the

statistics with the teacher-provided written statements, a more accurate

representation of teachers’ levels of use and needs in technology integration was

gained.

The strategy for the data collection was concurrent, enabling data to be

collected together to form a meta-inference at the conclusion of this study. The

benefits of using a concurrent mixed-method strategy include the ability for a

researcher to gain “broader perspectives as a result of using the different methods

as opposed to using the predominant method alone” (Creswell, 2009, p. 214).

Further, descriptive and inferential statistics along with coding were used to

analyze data.

The ultimate goal of this study was to provide quality technology

instruction that teachers can use to integrate technology into their daily

instruction for students. In order to obtain honest feedback when studying the

program, all the feedback forms were anonymous.

Setting and Sample

Every year, the Texas Education Agency's Division of Performance

Reporting releases the Academic Excellence Indicator System reports (AEIS),

which pull together a wide range of information on the performance of every

district and campus in the state. These reports also provide extensive information on

staff, finances, programs, and demographics for each school and district (Texas

Education Agency, 2012). This report shows that EFG Middle School is a Title I

school that is in the ABC Independent School

District, which is one of the largest school districts located in Southeast Texas. ABC

Independent School District has 17 middle schools, of which 10 are classified as

Title I. EFG Middle School has over 1,407 students and employs 90 teachers to

deliver instruction across the curriculum. According to the AEIS report, the

teachers are diverse in ethnicity, as the staff is 0.9% Native American, 1.9%

Asian/Pacific Islander, 8.5% Hispanic, 21.6% African American, and 67.1%

White. Male teachers make up 24.6% of the faculty; female teachers make up

75.4%. Teachers’ years of experience were described as follows: beginning

teachers, 14.6%; 1-5 years experience, 40.5%; 6-10 years experience, 21.2%;

11-20 years experience, 15.3%; and over 20 years experience, 9.5%

(AEIS, 2010). As part of the research, I administered the International Society for

Technology in Education (ISTE) NETS-T survey to all participating teachers at

EFG Middle School and analyzed the results. I also reviewed the State of Texas

STaR chart that each individual teacher provided. No students were involved in

the process of this study.

As part of the research, every teacher was asked to volunteer for the

survey, and the data was anonymously collected from those who chose to

participate. Nonprobability convenience sampling was used in this research

because of the need to select population elements on the basis of their

availability (O’Sullivan et al., 2003). Out of about 90 teachers, I was hoping for

50-60 participants, and I had 48. In nonprobability convenience sampling,

researchers use whatever individuals are available rather than selecting from the

entire population. A convenience sample was obtained through voluntary and

anonymous participation. According to O’Sullivan et al. (2003), if the purpose

of a study is to “identify issues of potential concern to a larger population” (p.

147), then a convenience sample is appropriate.

Instrumentation and Materials

The tools used for this project study were the Texas Teacher STaR chart

and the International Society for Technology in Education surveys. The research

identified descriptions of middle school teachers who were directly affected by

the NETS-T (Creswell, 2009). The NETS-T survey instrument is a tool that was

developed and used by Sam (2009) using the NETS-T standard. The teachers’

self-reports of their level of competence in each NETS-T standard constituted

the quantitative data. The survey instrument also yielded qualitative data

collected from open-ended questions. The qualitative data was collected to

determine how teachers perceived their use of technology to support their

teaching and student learning. The qualitative data was also used to identify

patterns among participants’ responses. The results of the quantitative data were

used to form a holistic picture to clarify the relationship between the identified

variables (Creswell, 2009).

STaR Chart

TEA conducted a reliability and validity study over a 2-year period, with

Texas Teacher STaR chart survey reporting evaluated in 2004-2005 and 2005-

2006. Cronbach’s alpha was used as the reliability coefficient and assessed the

consistency of the scores generated by the instrument (Sheehan & Shapley,

2007). The STaR chart was 0.91 for both the 2004-2005 and the 2005-2006

school years. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to study the

construct-related validity, or relationships among the key areas and the items

describing the key areas, and whether or not these relationships were confirmed

when actual data were studied (Sheehan & Shapley, 2007). The CFA was used to

determine whether the data demonstrated that the number of key areas and the

component items within the key areas conformed to what was expected based on

the designed structure of the STaR chart.

Data Collection

Two data collection instruments were used for this project study. The

first tool was the NETS-T survey instrument, which is a tool that was developed

and used by Sam (2009) using the NETS-T standard. The teachers’ self-reports

of their level of competence in each NETS-T standards constituted the

quantitative data. The second tool was the Texas School Technology and

Readiness (STaR) Chart, which is a survey tool developed by the State of

Texas to gauge teachers’ progress in meeting the recommendations in the Long-

Range Plan for Technology (LRPT), 2006-2020. All data were distributed and

returned within a week’s time. As the researcher, I placed a drop box in a

designated location, and I was responsible for collecting the documents from

the drop box. To track the data, a cataloging system was put in place where each

document was placed in its own folder and placed in a box off campus for

safekeeping.

Each research question was answered using the Texas STaR chart and

the NETST standards for evaluating the skills and knowledge educators need to

teach, work, and learn in an increasingly connected global and digital society.

Both surveys have been used in the state of Texas to address questions similar to

the overarching research question of this project. The STaR chart was

completed during the school year and automatically contains identifying

information. The NETS-T survey was turned in with the STaR chart by the

teachers. No identifying marks were on any documents. At the end of the day, I

collected the STaR chart and NETS-T forms from the drop box. Once all the

information had been collected from the drop box and reviewed for identifying

marks, all information was ready for analysis. The forms were placed in a folder

that I kept with me, and I went to a secure room in an effort to start analyzing

the data.

Triangulation was used to identify situations in which EFG Middle

School teachers believed that technology integration could increase.

Triangulation of sources was the method used to examine the consistency

between the Texas STaR chart and the NETS-T Survey. A comparison of

participants with different viewpoints concerning technology integration into

the curriculum was conducted. The main idea was that this research study leads

to more confidence if different methods lead to the same result. I gave the data

to two colleagues to code independently and compare the results.

Upon approval from the IRB (approval # 12-10-14-0136350), teachers

were asked to volunteer to participate in this project study by completing the

NETS-T survey and providing their STaR chart results. Every teacher was not

under my supervision received a survey with an attached letter explaining the

process (see Appendix D). The letter explained that teachers who chose to

complete the survey would place anonymous information in a secure drop box

that was located by the teachers’ mailboxes. Teachers were informed that

participation in the study was totally voluntary and that they could opt out at any

time.

When I started this study, my title was Science Teacher. Within the past

year, my title has changed to Assistant Principal. As a result of the title change,

anyone under my direct supervision was not asked to participate in the study.

The anonymity of this study allowed teachers to be free with expressions without

fear of any pressure. Prior to introducing the survey for this study to the teachers

at EFG Middle School and asking them to participate, I received permission from

District (Appendix F). After receiving proposal approval from the committee at

Walden University, I submitted the research proposal along with a request to

conduct research to Walden’s Institutional Review

Board.

Data Analysis

To calculate scores for surveys, the Pearson correlation coefficient was

used. With r taking a range of values from +1 to -1, the closer to -1 or +1 the

coefficient is, the stronger the relationship between the two variables. The

design of the questionnaire, which included a Likert type scale, the National

Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T), and opened ended

questions, required that the entire questionnaire have acceptable reliability

of .84. The reliability of the STaR chart is .89. Raw data can be found

throughout the tables of this document.

In an effort to analyze the data gathered in the open-ended questions, I

created response categories that were used to label each comment accordingly.

This process assisted with identifying patterns and trends associated with teachers’

technology use, which rendered a final analysis. The trainings are aligned with

NETS-T standards for evaluating the skills and knowledge educators need to

teach, work, and learn in an increasingly connected global and digital society. The

self-report descriptive design was used for the survey based on Creswell’s

statement, “The mixed methods design can be identified by its concurrent data

collection phase where both qualitative and quantitative data were collected

simultaneously” (Creswell, 2009, p. 214). Field (2009) stated correlation research

is “where we observe what naturally goes on in the world without directly

interfering with it” (p. 12). Both survey instruments served as a record for what

naturally happens in the classroom. In mixed methods studies, investigators

intentionally integrate or combine the quantitative and qualitative data rather than

keeping them separate (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Likert Scales are ordinal, which is very popularly used in forming

Questionnaires. Often known as the Rating Scale, it is the most widely used

approach to assessing teachers’ attitudes on technology integration with most

offering some open-ended items at the end of the questionnaire (Abrami et al.,

1990; Anderson, Cain & Bird, 2005; Arbuckle & Williams, 2003; Billings,

Connors & Skiba, 2001; Elnichi, Kolarik &

Bardella, 2003; Jackson, Teal, Rains, Nannsel, Force & Burdsal, 1999;

Onwuegbuzie, Witcher, Collins, Filer, Wiedmaier & Moore, 2007; Young,

2006). Often when we participate in surveys, we see questions that give options

for the level of agreement that we have for the subject. This is a basic use of the

Likert Scale. The scale was created in consideration to how favorable the

concept was for the Measurement. A 5-point Likert was used to indicate

teachers’ levels of competence in the NETS-T standards.

Participants responded 1-5 for low to high competences in the targeted standard.

Quantitative Data

Quantitative research was based on a quantitative or numeric description of

technology competencies, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a

sample of that population (Creswell, 2009 p. 145). In this study a questionnaire

using the NETS-T was developed by Sam (2009) and this was chosen to

determine how teachers themselves describe their competence in each NETS-T

standard. Sections 1-5 are the quantitative portions of the survey and sections 6 -7

are the qualitative sections.

Section 1 of the NETS-T survey contains an ordinal scale that uses four

items that surveyed how teachers use their knowledge of subject matter, teaching

and learning, and technology to facilitate experiences that advance student

learning, creativity, and innovation in both face-to-face and virtual environments.

Section 2 of the NETS-T Survey contains four items that assess how

teachers design, develop, and evaluate authentic learning experiences and

assessment incorporating contemporary tools and resources to maximize content

learning in context and to develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes identified

in the NETS·S. ISTE NETS·S standards are the standards for evaluating the

skills and knowledge students need to learn effectively and live productively in

an increasingly global and digital world.

Section 3 of the NETS-T Survey contains four items that assess how

teachers exhibit knowledge, skills, and work processes representative of an

innovative professional in a global and digital society.

Section 4 of the NETS-T Survey contains four items that assess how

teachers understand local and global societal issues and responsibilities in an

evolving digital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behavior in their professional

practices.

Section 5 of the NETS-T Survey contains four items that assess how

teachers continuously improve their professional practice, model lifelong

learning, and exhibit leadership in their school and professional community by

promoting and demonstrating the effective use of digital tools and resources.

Qualitative Data

Qualitative data were gathered to enrich and support the quantitative

components of the study (Creswell, 2009). In addition, a qualitative approach was

also used because the research questions incorporated a need for both quantitative

and qualitative data (Creswell, 2009). The concurrent strategy describes the

benefits of using a mixed method as the ability for a researcher to gain “broader

perspectives as a result of using the different methods as opposed to using the

predominant method alone” (Creswell, 2009, p.

214).

Phenomenal analysis is the process in which the researcher openly

reflects on the present data, contemplating the participant’s description in a way

that allows segments of what were described to be discerned (but not separated)

as moments of the participant’s experience. Analysis consists of “the

distinguishing of the constituents of the phenomenon as well as the exploration

of their relations to and connections with adjacent phenomena” (Spiegelberg,

1983, p. 691). I analyzed the data in parts as well as a whole, in an effort to

discern and comprehend those relationships in which one finds the psychological

significance that speaks to my researcher questions in a relevant way. The

phenomenal analysis was used to address open-ended questions in Section 6. I

created frequency distribution tables with descriptive headings to explore the

qualitative data I collected.

Section 6 of the NETS-T Survey were open-ended questions relating to

formative assessment.

The data for this project study was gathered through survey tools that

encompass all of the characteristics included in the constant comparison method,

which made mixed method analysis the best choice for this study. The qualitative

data was comprised of open-ended questions, which was analyzed using constant

comparison method. The process of constant comparison "stimulates thought that

leads to both descriptive and explanatory categories" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p.

341). Triangulation was used as a method for corroborating findings and as a test

for validity. Having multiple sources of data (Creswell, 2003; Yin 2009), and a

well developed set of operational measures helped to establish construct validity

of the study (Yin, 2009, p.42).

Section 7 of the NETS-T Survey contains a checklist to identify staff

developments. Descriptive statistics are initially used in describing and

organizing the data in a useful manner. In this study, the descriptive statistics

assisted in simplifying large amounts of data to answer research questions one

and two. Each descriptive statistic reduces data into a simpler summary. Further,

they provide simple summaries about the sample and measures (Ott &

Longneckeer, 2011).

What are the characteristics and prevalence rates of EFG Middle School

teachers with advanced and above competency ratings classifications of their use

of technology on the STaR chart to support their teaching and student learning?

The descriptive statistics of central tendency, dispersion and prevalence such as

modes, percentages, and frequencies would be presented on each characteristic

gathered.

Competency and the Amount of Professional Development Taken

To first see if there was a relationship between the teachers’ level of

competency and the amount of professional development taken an analysis was

done using a Pearson Product Moment Correlation (Ott & Longnecker, 2007).

Then a correlational analysis was done to see if the number of technology

training classes was positively correlated to teacher self-reported technology

usage.

The Pearson correlation coefficient, r, can take a range of values from +1

to -1 (Ott & Longnecker, 2010). The closer to -1 or +1 the coefficient is, the

stronger the relationship between the two variables. A coefficient of zero shows

there were no association between the two variables while a coefficient greater

than zero suggests a positive correlation. This means that as the value of one

variable increases, so does the value of the other variable. On the other hand, a

coefficient less than zero suggest a negative correlation. This means that as the

value of one variable increases, the value of the other variable decreases. Both

variables must be in continuous form. Correlation tells the strength and direction

of the relationship between two variables, but can never infer the cause of the

relationship.

Finally, coding, done by triangulation was used to find out what

situations do EFG Middle School Teachers think would help increase

technology integration. The researcher used the grounded theory, which occurs

in 3 phases: Open coding, axial coding, selective coding (Creswell, 2009). Open

coding incorporates and identifies general themes, axial coding which includes

assigning categories and subcategories to the data, and selective coding where

specific core categories are made.

In order to maintain accuracy for qualitative validity, triangulation was used.

Triangulation uses two or more methods in order to check the result of the study

(Creswell, 2009). For this study, triangulation of sources method was used to

examine the consistency between the Texas STaR chart and the NETS T Survey.

The process compared participants with different viewpoints on their use of

technology integration into their curriculum. The main idea was that this leads to

more confidence if different methods lead to the same result. I gave the data to

two colleagues to code independently and compare the results.

Description of Triangulation Methods Used

Triangulation of sources. Triangulation involves examining the

consistency of different data sources from within the same method (Denzin,

1978; Patton, 1999). For example,

•at different points in time

•in public vs. private settings

•comparing people with different viewpoints

Triangulation. Triangulation refers to the use of more than one

approach to the investigation of a research question in order to enhance

confidence in the ensuing findings. The triangulation of sources was the type

used in this research because it examined the consistency of two data sources

within the same method. Since much social research is founded on the use of a

single research method and as such may suffer from limitations associated with

that method or from the specific application of it, triangulation offers the

prospect of enhanced confidence. Triangulation is one of the several rationales

for Multi-method Research. The term derives from surveying, where it refers to

the use of a series of triangles to map out an area.

Table 3

Analysis of Research Data

Research question Specific data source Data Analysis

How do EFG Middle School

teachers with advanced and

above rating classify their use

of technology on the STaR

chart to support their teaching

and student learning?

NETS-T Survey

STaR chart

Descriptive

prevalence

rates

Is there a relationship

between the teachers’ level of

competency and the amount

of professional development

taken?

NETS-T Survey

STaR chart

NETS-T

Survey

Analysis

Person

product

moment

Correlation

What situations do EFG

Middle School teachers think

would help increase

technology integration?

NETS-T Survey

NETS-T

Survey

Coding

How does number of

technology training classes

relate to teacher self-

reported technology usage?

NETS-T Survey

Integration

STaR chart

Correlation

Survey Validity

Sam (2009) stated that the content validity of the NETS-T Survey

instrument was established and piloted through the literature and the judgments of

three content experts. Nardi (2006) defines content validity as “the way to

understand how well a set of items is measuring the complexity of a concept or

variable the researcher is studying” (p. 59). The three experts were the technology

director of a high school, a library media specialist of a middle school, and the

technology director from the state department of education (Sam, 2009). The

findings from the pilot survey provided feedback including recommendations and

interpretations of the questions (Sam, 2009). This was the same survey I used in my

research.

The Texas Teacher STaR chart can assist in the measurement of the

impact of state and local efforts to improve student learning through the use of

technology as specified in No Child Left Behind, Title II, Part D. It can also

identify needs for on-going professional development and raise awareness of

research-based instructional goals. It has been validated by the Texas Education

Agency.

Survey Reliability

A Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was conducted to assess the instrument’s

reliability. According to Gay and Airasian (2000), “Cronbach’s alpha estimates

internal consistency reliability by determining how all items on a test relate to all

other tests items and to the total test” (p. 174). The higher the alpha value the more

reliable would be the survey instrument. The calculations for reliability of data

collected were also conducted.

The design of the questionnaire, which included a Likert type scale, the

National Education Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T), and opened ended

questions, required that the entire questionnaire have acceptable reliability of .84. The

following Table sample provides the alpha reliability for data from all five domains in

the survey from Dr. Sam’s research, which were all NETS-T.

Table 4

Alpha Internal Consistency Reliabilities of Domains Within the National Education

Technology Standards for Teachers Questionnaire

Domain Number of items Alpha reliability

Facilitating and Inspiring Student Learning 4 .976

Developing and Designing Digital-Age Learning

Experiences and Assessments 4 .975

Modeling Digital-Age Work and Learning 4 .976

Promoting and Molding Digital Citizenship

and Responsibility 4 .976

Engaging in Professional Growth and Leadership 4 .974

The data for the 20 items NETS-T questionnaire yielded an acceptable

reliability higher than .84. The 5-point Likert type scale format of the NETS-T

questionnaire demanded that the instrument go through the process of internal

consistency. Based on results of a Cronbach’s alpha test, the survey developer

concluded that, “results of the reliability analysis indicated that the survey items

were all measuring the same construct and were highly interconnected”.

The Texas Education Agency Educational Technology Advisory

Committee (ETAC) developed the Texas School Technology and Readiness

(STaR) Chart, an online resource tool for self-assessment of your campus’ and

district’s efforts to effectively integrate technology across the curriculum. This

rubric serves as the standard for assessing technology preparedness in Texas K-

12 schools. This chart has been updated to align with the new Long-Range Plan

for Technology, 2006-2020.

All data related to the STaR chart are available to the public online and was

retrieved from the Texas Education Agency website. The Texas Teacher STaR

chart has been developed around the four key areas of the Long-Range Plan for

Technology, 2006-

2020: Teaching and Learning; Educator Preparation and Development; Leadership,

Administration and Instructional Support; and Infrastructure for Technology.

The Texas Teacher STaR chart was designed to help teachers, campuses, and

districts determine their progress toward meeting the goals of the long-range

plan for technology, as well as meeting the goals of their district. A copy of the

Texas

Campus STaR chart was inserted as Appendix B and the NETS-T

Survey has been inserted as Appendix C. Both instruments allow teachers to self

assess their levels of technology and literacy and integration. Voluntary

participation by teachers were requested to complete a paper copy of the NETS-

T Survey. As a requirement under the district’s approval to conduct a study

(Appendix D), a research sponsor was appointed to oversee all school related

activities. The sponsor was responsible for reviewing a district created cover

letter (Appendix E) that explains the research as well as a district created

consent form (Appendix E) to all teachers. Completed surveys were returned to

a secure mailbox that I checked at the end of each day. All surveys were

anonymous to protect the identity of each participant. Each survey was assigned

a number (ex: S1, S2…) after it was turned in. No students were used as part of

this research. Part of the data for this project study was available online and

contains no personal information for any participant. The survey aspect of this

project study was completely anonymous and there were neither a risk of

identification of employee nor student from the data obtained.

Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, and Delimitations

Assumptions

The first assumption was that teachers would be open and accurate with their

responses about the integration of technology use in the classroom. Another

assumption was that teachers’ responses on the NETS-T Survey coordinate with the

STaR chart results. The final assumption was that the STaR chart is an accurate

depiction of the campus’ rating in relation to federal mandates. This study assumed

that teachers would answer each question openly and honest.

Limitations

A limitation of this study was that only one school setting was studied

with a maximum sample size of 90. Another limitation was gathering only

teacher responses rather than also gathering student responses to technology

implementation into their classes. The lack of trust of the anonymity promise

may cause fear of job security, which may result in the risk of inaccurate self-

reporting by some teachers. In addition, limitations include the use of self-

reported data, as well as the surveyed population’s dependency on volunteers

who may be descriptively different who choose not to participate. Another

limitation was based on the fact that ABC School District would not allow

employee interviews for this research. The last limitation was that this study uses

nonprobability Convenience sampling; therefore, the results may not be

applicable to other middle schools in the state of Texas.

Scope and Delimitations

The scope of this study pertains to the choice of goals, research

questions, variables, and the theoretical framework from which to approach the

problem and seek a solution. Setting the goal for this study was prompted by the

need to better understand the relationship between the Texas STaR chart, NETS-

T Survey, and teachers’ use or nonuse of technology at EFG Middle School.

This was a mixed methods study of one middle school in one school district in

Texas; in short, it was a relatively small study in scope, the results of which may

therefore be more suggestive than conclusive. The target population for this

study was classroom teachers who are currently employed in a School District in

the Texas. A convenience sample was taken from that middle school for the

purpose of this study.

Data Analysis Results

This mixed method project study aimed to investigate EFG Middle School

teachers’ descriptions of their competency in the current National Education

Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T). The study also investigated how

EFG Middle School teachers currently use technology to support their teaching,

student learning, situations under which teachers would use more technology, and

specific technology trainings teachers have taken. The NETS-T survey was used

to address the overarching research question; do teachers believe they are

competent in technology standards and its integration?

Teachers were asked to volunteer to participate in this project study by

completing the survey and providing their STaR chart results. Teachers that

completed the survey placed anonymous information in a secured drop box.

After receiving the anonymous surveys from the drop box, I analyzed the data in

parts as well as a whole, in an effort to discern and comprehend those

relationships in which one finds the psychological significance that speaks to

my researcher questions in a relevant way. The phenomenal analysis was used

to address open-ended questions. I created frequency distribution tables with

descriptive headings to explore the qualitative data I collected.

A Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to first see if there were

any relationships between the teachers’ level of competency and the amount of

professional development taken. A statistically significant positive correlation was

found between the number of technology training classes relates to teacher self-

reported technology usage at r= .305, p=.035.

Respondents

Out of 90 teachers, there were a total of 48 respondents who completed

the research protocol. The number of respondents represents 53% of the

population. Although a higher response rate is desired, it is not always

necessary. In a study conducted by Visser, Krosnick, Marquette and Curtin

(1996) showed that surveys with lower response rates (near 20%) yielded more

accurate measurements than did surveys with higher response rates (near 60 or

70%). In a similar study conducted by Atkerson, Lonna, and Alverez , they

examined the representativeness of two surveys using information known about

the population, and although they found important differences between the two

in terms of sampling and nonresponse bias, they also find that both surveys

represent the underlying population despite low response rates. The average

number of years taught by respondents was 5.78 (SD = 4.00) with a median of 5

years and a mode of 3 years. The range was 16 years. The data suggests the

respondents are relatively new to the teaching profession. See Figure 1.

Figure 1. Years teaching.

Research Questions

The following guiding questions were measured on interval scales based

on mixed method attributes. Research question one was “How do EFG Middle

School teachers describe their level of competency in the National Education

Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T)?” Research question number two

asks “Is there a relationship between the teachers’ level of competency and the

amount of professional development taken?” There was a statistically

significant positive correlation found between level of competency rating and

professional development classes taken (r = 0.305, p = 0.035). The effect size

here is r 2 = .093. Which means that 9.3 % of the variance is accounted for by

the amount of professional development taken on the teachers’ level of

competency. However, 90.7% is not accounted for by the amount of

professional development taken on the teachers’ level of competency. As the

number of

technology classes taken increases, so does the competency ratings.

Table 5

Competency Rating and Professional Development Classes Taken

Rating based Number on

the STaR of classes

chart taken in

technolog

Rating based on the

STaR chart

Correlation coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

1.000

.305*

.035

N 48 48

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Research question three asked “What situations do EFG Middle School

Teachers think would help increase technology integration?” Most participants did

not respond to this qualitative portion of the survey. In most cases, it was just left

blank. The responses are summarized in Table 3 but no conclusions are drawn due

to the small sample size.

Table 6

Survey Answers

Please describe a situation in which you would likely integrate the use of technology in the

classroom more often.

Missing Answers

Audiobooks. Research paper. Project (book report) with

37 78.4 78.4 78.4

PowerPoint.

I am considering investing in a class set of tablets to

1 2.0 2.0 80.4

eliminate hard copies and further engage students, using a

medium they better respond to while learning.

I want to check out the program called Dojo. Laser

1 2.0 2.0 82.4

pointers, tablets for digital art, color printer for good

references to help see colors.

I will most likely integrate technology more often during

the introduction of lesson topic as this gives an auditory,

1 2.0 2.0 84.3

visual, and sometimes Kinesthetic learning all at once, and

prepare the students minds for learning.

I would love to use more technology with the students. In

my last district, I had a couple computers in the classroom

1 2.0 2.0 86.3

designated for student use. I used them for stations work,

student projects, and quizzes.

If students were involved in a brainteaser activity.

KAHOOT is an online competition game where students

1 2.0 2.0 88.2

complete and are able to see one another's initials next to

their score on the main screen for view.

1 2.0 2.0 90.2

If the programs and the hardware were accessible

More technology resources (1 pads, etc). Block math

2 4.0 4.0 94.1

Frequency Percent Valid

percent

Cumulative

percent

classes. More time to stretch lessons. 1 2.0 2.0 96.1

QR codes

Right now I print ELA News stories and quizzes and for

homework. I'd like to enroll kids in online accounts so they

1 2.0 2.0 98.0

1 2.0 2.0 100.0

can quiz online. I could keep track of progress and

they could complete more stories.

Total 48 100.0 100.0

Research question four asked “How does number of technology training

classes relate to teacher self-reported technology usage?” There was a statistically

significant positive correlation found between technology training classes and

teacher self-reported technology usage (r = 0.405, p = 0.004). The effect size here

is .164 or 16.4% of the variance is accounted for by technology training classes and

teacher self-reported technology usage . Please see Table 4.

Table 7

Technology Training Classes and Teacher Self-Reported Technology Usage

Teaching

technology

in the

classroom

Number of

classes

taken in

technology

Teaching of technology

in the classroom

Correlation

coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed)

1.000

.405** .00

N 48 48

Number of classes

taken in technology

Correlation

coefficient

Sig. (2-tailed) .405** .00

1.000

N 48 48

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Conclusion

The purpose of this Project study was to investigate how EFG Middle

School teachers currently use technology to support their teaching and student

learning. The results of the survey yielded the technological needs of EFG

Middle School that were the compass for future technology staff developments

and trainings. The research design included self-report data collection technique,

descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the survey findings of

the quantitative data. The qualitative data was analyzed using phenomenological

analysis in an effort to capture the teacher’s perspective of how their level of

technology relates to their level of us.

Section 3: The Project

Introduction

In this section, I provide an introduction to the project. The surveys for this

project were used to address the overarching research question: Do teachers believe

that they are competent in technology standards and the integration of technology?

The data for this project was collected through anonymous surveys that included a

self-report quantitative portion along with a secondary, open-ended qualitative

portion. After collection and analysis of the data, it was evident that there was a

positive correlation between the level of technology use and the amount of

technology staff development taken. This section includes the description and goals

of the project, the rationale for selecting this project, and a review of the literature

addressing why this solution is an appropriate response based on teachers’

descriptions of their competency in the current NETS-T as well as their current use

of technology to support their teaching and student learning. In addition, this section

includes a proposal and an implementation plan for a project evaluation.

Description and Goals

This project was designed to address the needs of teachers at EFG Middle

School (pseudonym) to improve their competency in the current National Education

Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS-T) and to gain more knowledge on how

to integrate technology into their curriculum effectively. The study also investigated

how EFG Middle School teachers currently use technology to support their teaching

and student learning, situations in which teachers would use more technology, and

specific technology trainings teachers have taken. This project was developed to

duplicate identified positive correlations between levels of technology use and staff

development. The responses from participants in this study showed that they all

wanted to incorporate technology at a higher level but lacked the necessary skills to

do so. In his article “Measuring Meaningful Outcomes in Consequential Contexts:

Searching for a Happy Medium in Educational Technology Research,” Ross (2014)

suggest that the more technology training that teachers receive, the more likely they

are to integrate technology on a consistent basis.

As part of the school’s effort to increase the level of collaboration among

departments, purposeful planning days have already been planned for each

department. On purposeful planning days, all teachers of a grade level spend the

entire day planning while multiple substitute teachers conduct their classes. As the

school has already planned for more purposeful planning days next school year, this

structure provides a platform to schedule several small-group technology training

sessions. This schedule allows for teachers to participate in a 2-hour hands-on

technology professional development session followed by a 30-minute observation

of a teacher working at an advanced level of technology integration. This

professional development will take place once a month and will be scheduled for the

next school year. Trainers for this technology staff development will include district

technology trainers who can duplicate the program across the district at all grade

levels. After discussing the possibility of integrating technology training as part of a

technologybased professional learning community, my administrators were pleased

with the idea and wanted to get started right away. The building principal expressed

that it would offer a valuable component that we had been missing in our campus-

based staff developments.

Rationale

Burkman (2012) stated that the method by which the content is delivered is

an essential component of professional development. I am planning to present the

training through professional learning communities because I believe it will offer the

teachers a professional learning staff development in which they may receive the

support that they need and the technology collaboration opportunity that has been

missing. With a professional-learning-communities approach to professional

development, teachers will have the opportunity to expand meaningful collaborative

groups to include technology in an effort to discover, plan, and integrate

technologyteaching strategies into their curriculum. The learning communities serve

as a method of learning in context rather than in isolation. “Learning communities

present a potentially useful mechanism for supporting and enabling professional

learning, allowing opportunities to link formal and informal learning with peers”

(Milligan, 2014, p12).

Klug (2014) states that lifelong learning is the cornerstone in our education

system and that teachers need to be lifelong learners. One way to help teachers

remain lifelong learners is to create professional development that can be completed

within the confines of the workday. Offering the opportunity to collaborate with

peers on new strategies for integrating technology is one way to support teachers

while promoting instructional support in education. This project also decreases the

amount of time needed to attend technology staff development after school hours

and on weekends. With the specific needs of students in mind, collaboration drives a

team of professionals to seek appropriate strategies, methodologies, modifications,

and accommodations through which the most educational impact can be seen in the

educational environment where our students must perform (Peluso, 2014).

Ultimately, the goal of this project is to provide a structured platform that will

promote technology-based teaching and learning at EFG Middle School. Through

purposeful planning, teachers will benefit from the expertise of others and become

engaged in the technology professional learning process through collaboration and

sharing successful teaching strategies.

Review of the Literature

In this section, I review literature on technology professional development

training aimed at meeting the needs of teachers to learn new strategies for

technology integration. Through Walden’s’ library, I accessed the following

databases for the review of this literature: ProQuest, EBSCO, Sage, Education

Research Complete, and ERIC. The search terms included technology learning

communities, professional technology learning communities, professional

technology learning communities in education, collaborative learning, teacher

education, quality professional development, effective professional learning

communities, professional development, and types of professional development. In

this review of the literature, I explain the purpose of professional learning

communities, the characteristics of professional learning communities, and teacher

collaboration.

Professional Learning Communities

Successful learning communities connect participants so that they can share

ideas and construct knowledge in a safe, collegial atmosphere (Johnson, 2014).

Hamilton (2014) contended that the quality of a teacher is directly linked to the

quality of the staff development the teacher has received. In this age of technology,

high-quality technology professional development is indispensable in any effort to

aid teachers in technology integration (Kundi, 2014). In the world of education,

professional learning communities are vital to producing a system that enables

teachers to collaborate and learn from one another’s knowledge and experience.

According to DuFour (2007), learning communities are used as a means to develop

professional learning while bringing about continuous ways for educators to change

and improve their knowledge and skills. Collaborative learning opportunities create

a platform for effective educators to continuously learn new strategies in addition to

understanding best instructional practices (Trust, 2012). Professional learning

communities have been recognized as playing an important role in improving

teachers’ knowledge in staff development areas (Pella, 2011). Current research also

supports the belief that professional learning communities can enhance instruction,

leading to a positive effect on teacher reception and application (Vescio, Ross, &

Adams, 2008).

Hord (1997) characterized “professional learning communities as an ongoing

process through which teachers and administrators work collaboratively to seek and

share learning and to act on their learning, their goal being to enhance their

effectiveness as professionals for students’ benefit. (P. 87)” Through collaboration,

teachers can replicate learned strategies and offer insights to enhance and modify

lessons. Shagrir (2012) stresses that support is one of the most critical factors for

successful professional learning. Current research shows that professional learning is

most effective when teachers consistently collaborate. When it comes to learning,

many adults learn best through methods that include socializing and reflecting in

addition to reading and participating in traditional professional learning programs

(Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 2011). Easton (2012) stated that successful

professional learning communities are successful because of relationships and open

communication. In addition, professional learning communities tend to be more

sensitive to the school’s climate when they take place consistently within the school

(Easton, 2012).

Technology-Based Professional Learning Communities

In this age of technology we have several different resources to collaborate

such as tablets, smart phones, and computers. To prepare students for present and

future literacy needs, we need to revise how we frame our lessons (Lotherington,

2013). Educational reform is shifting in the United States to demand change in the

way technology is used (Laffey, 2012). Technology based professional learning

communities is a proven method to provide trainings for teachers in a smaller setting

to maximize their learning in the area of technology integration. Successful learning

communities connect participants so that they can share ideas and construct

knowledge in a safe, collegial atmosphere (Johnson, 2014). The benefits included

reduced isolation as a result of educators from multiple constituencies working

collaboratively together. In a study conducted in 2012, Kim and Miller determined

that professional learning communities that incorporate distributed expertise and

resources such as technology-based trainings are crucial for enhancing early career

teachers. In this study a professional learning community was used for early teachers

in an effort to create a platform for teachers to share knowledge, collaborate, and

communicate. Many teachers have little opportunity to share and discuss their

technology integration practices in the course of a normal school day. This lack of

opportunity can you leave many teachers feeling isolated (Donnelly, 2013)

Reflective Approach

Professional learning communities not only allows teachers the opportunities

to collaborate, but it also allows them the opportunity to engage in reflective

thinking. The reflective approach in professional learning community offers a

thorough, balanced description of the realities for teachers in todays standards-based

environment, while encouraging prospective teachers to be as reflective, creative,

and independent as possible throughout their careers (Harrell, 2013). The use of

reflective learning to encourage higher order learning outcomes has been a growing

area in education research and practice (Bell, 2011).

Leadership’s Role in a Professional Learning Community

Professional learning communities are gaining interest in educational

leadership factions (Leader, 2014). It is becoming known for it effectiveness in

creating intimate learning environments. The quality of a school can be linked to the

value of its leaders and teachers (Atteberry, 2010). No single person has all the

knowledge, skills, and talent to lead a district, improve a school, or meets all the

needs of every child in his or her classroom (DuFour, 2012). Leaders are charged

with fostering a school's improvement, enhancing its overall effectiveness, and

promoting student learning (Lunenburg, 2014). When leaders create the

environment for teachers to collaborate, teachers are able to provide insight on how

strategies are working in their classroom. In a research study, Kingrey (2014)

demonstrated a correlation between effective education leaders support of effective

staff developments and student achievement. Creating a vibrant professional

learning community can truly make a difference in the quest to maintain life long

learners in our schools (Easton, 2011).

Implementation

This project incorporates technology staff development with professional

learning communities (PLC). Despite its existence on a different scale in this middle

school, professional learning community may be a new term for the staff. As an

introduction and training of best practices associated with successful models, all

staff will participate in a videoconference that will be facilitated by me. The

videoconference will be broadcast through Google hangout and is automatically

archived on YouTube for continuous viewing. The initial videoconference will take

place after school on any computer with Internet access. The conference will

broadcast from the auditorium but can be viewed from all classroom computers.

The auditorium is a logical choice because of its flexibility of space for staff

members that desire to see the broadcast live. During the training, PowerPoint

presentations will be shown in an effort to outline the following:

1. The purpose of professional learning communities

2. The definition of PLC

3. The characteristics of effective PLC

4. The rational for using PLC for technology training

5. The benefits of using PLC for technology training

In order to create a successful professional learning community training

program, an administrator and designee will be in charge of developing a monthly

training schedule as well as the technology content that will be delivered. Each

session will be led by a technology liaison from the local school as well as a liaison

from the district level. The platform for this technology training is developed and

continuously monitored by a team of teachers and administrators as a way to ensure

all training topics and deliveries are in line with the need of the participants. To

effectively evaluate the ongoing technology professional learning community

program, the following questions will be asked in a survey after each professional

development session: (a) how confident are you in your ability to integrate

technology into your curriculum? (b) how familiar are you with strategies to

integrate technology into your curriculum? (c) what key areas of this professional

learning was most beneficial and you’re learning? (d) was there any area or areas of

this technology professional learning that needed to be provided more support? (e) in

what area of technology do you need more support to help you in integrating

technology into your curriculum?

Potential Resources and Existing Supports

Fortunately, many of the resources that would be required to ensure the

success of this proposed project are already available at EFG Middle School. With

the resources that are in place such as computers, internet, and projectors, this

project does not need extensive budget and can be implemented immediately.

Everything needed to put this project in motion for teachers is already in place.

Teachers will just need to adjust their focus to a technology based staff development.

Additionally, because EFG Middle School has such a great technology

structure, the administrator, and the liaison in charge of technology and staff

developments can develop a program with little to no immediate cost. For technical

issues that may arise, the school has a full-time technology technician that is always

available to troubleshoot technology issues. In addition to the technology that is

available in every classroom, the current planning room is equipped with all the

technology that exists in the classrooms as well as an additional set of laptops that

can be used at anytime. Each time a staff development is presented for the first time,

it will be videotaped and made available for teachers to review any time.

Potential Barriers

When reviewing this proposed project, there are three possible barriers that

may exist. One possible barrier that may exist lies with the attitude of participants.

Teachers may be reluctant to spend their time collaborating and sharing their areas

of success in technology with the other teachers. The success of this technology

professional learning community lies in the willingness of all participants to

maintain an attitude of support for their fellow coworkers. Another possible barrier

exist in the area of unfamiliarity with the rigor of technology based professional

learning communities. Although the basic concept of professional learning

communities is already in existence at EFG Middle School, the accountability and

dependability aspect of the technology integration is not. It is incumbent upon all

participants to give their very best for the success of the program. The last potential

barrier is in the area of consistent participation in every staff development that will

be provided. When starting new programs, the excitement that is generated based on

the perceived potential benefits of the program can have people anxious to get

started. However, after a period of time, the excitement tends to wear off and

participation can dwindle. There are many issues and circumstances that can impact

teacher’s ability to attend or maintain focus in these staff developments. Examples

of such circumstances may be family related issues, special education meetings, and

other teacher duty responsibilities. In anticipation of such an occurrence, each new

technology staff development training will be videotaped and archived for teachers

to review anytime from school or satellite locations.

Proposal for Implementation and Timetable

The proposed project incorporates technology and staff developments with

professional learning communities. The professional learning training will need to

take place in order to assist teachers with understanding the purpose, rationale,

definition, benefits, and characteristics of effective technology professional learning

communities. This training would take place on a Friday morning in place of a

regularly scheduled staff meeting. In addition, all information presented or shared

during this training will also be video recorded and archived for the viewing

pleasure of all. The initial training session would last approximately 60 minutes with

additional time given for review, question and answers.

The administrator and liaison will oversee the technology professional

learning communities and will provide a calendar of monthly technology training

that will take place during their purposeful planning meetings. Each session will be

facilitated by the on-campus technology liaison, the administrator in charge of staff

developments, and a district level technology staff development personnel.

Roles and Responsibilities of Student and Others

The success of this program is predicated on the active participation of all

participants in the planning phase as well as the implementation of the actual staff

development. As the researcher, I will work alongside the technology liaison as well

as district level personnel to facilitate staff development training. The role of the

district level personnel will be to provide input and guidance throughout the process.

The district level personnel will also duplicate each of the trainings at various

campuses across the district. The technology liaison will be responsible for all

technology aspects, which will include but is not limited to presentation

development, video recording, and archiving all presentations for continuous review

by current and future employees. In addition to training the staff, I as the

administrator, would collaborate with the department heads an effort to schedule

trainings and discuss possible changes based on participant feedback.

Participants would be eligible to receive staff development credit for all

trainings that they attend. As documentation of attendance, each participant will be

required to sign in with his or her employee id number, which is a normal practice

on this campus. After completing the initial training session, each teacher will be

responsible for collaborating and implementing acquired knowledge into their grade

level team curriculums. After each session, participants will be provided a feedback

form where they will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the program. As a

committee, I along with the technology liaison as well as the district representative

will review the feedback in an effort to provide a quality program.

Project Evaluation

The purpose of implementing technology-based professional learning

communities at EFG Middle School would be to provide teachers with additional

tools to support and maximize the learning experiences in the classrooms. One tool

that was used to ensure that the program is working as planned, and is an effective

use of the teachers’ time, will be a goal-based evaluation. Christie and Alkin (2005)

stated that goal-based evaluations refer to a class of evaluation approaches that

centers on the specification of objectives and the measurement of its outcomes. The

ultimate goal is to provide quality technology instruction that teachers can use to

integrate technology into their daily instructions for students. In an effort to obtain

honest feedback when evaluating the program, all the feedback forms will be

anonymous.

The anonymous survey should ease any desires of teachers to be tempered or

misleading in their answers. The response from the feedback survey will be used as

a tool to enhance the quality of future technology staff development trainings.

Implications Including Social Change

Local Community

Quality technology professional development has the potential to improve

first-time classroom instruction and student achievement. Understanding and

adjusting to the needs of the teachers can greatly improve teacher buy in. Through

purposeful training, hands-on guidance, and practice of the learning communities,

necessary improvements will be evident in teacher collaboration. Through this

program, the evidence of a nurturing and healthy environment will continue to grow

as well as the relationships between teachers and administrators, teachers and

teachers, as well as teachers and students.

As a result of this project study, the social change this project will yield is a

change in the way teachers deliver instruction. I hope technology based learning

communities will become a monthly staff development held on the campus of EFG

Middle School. This staff development will give teachers the training needed to

immediately integrate technology into their curriculum. The integration of

technology into the curriculum will also benefit the students, as it will provide

instruction in a style that is geared towards their generation’s learning styles. As the

success of the technology based staff development grows, I would like to see the

same program duplicated across multiple districts in our nation. I believe with the

success of the program, the ultimate benefit of student success will be duplicated as

well.

Far-Reaching

Development of technology-based professional learning communities has

local and far-reaching implications for this school district and community. By

growing a culture that is willing to collaborate for the benefit of all, I hope that the

end will extend to surrounding schools as well as surrounding school districts. With

the success of this program, a step-by-step training guide will be created for use by

any school or district that has a desire to duplicate this process. In order to maximize

the success of this program, the foundation must be collaborative and effective in

meeting the needs of all participants involved.

Conclusion

Section 3 presented a variety of topics that outline the goals and processes for

achieving success in the proposed project. In the above topics, the descriptions and

goals of the project were discussed. In addition, the rationale, review of literature,

summary, a discussion of the project, a proposed implementation plan including

vital resources, an evaluation plan, and the implications of this project we’re given.

In the final section of this paper, I will outline the benefits and high points of this

project as well as the limitations surrounding this project.

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions

Introduction

Section 4 includes my reflections and conclusions on this project. In this

section, the reflections include discussion concerning the strengths of this project as

well as its limitations. In addition, I analyze myself as a scholar-

developerpractitioner, and as a developer of this project. This section concludes with

the potential impact of this project and areas of social change, implementation,

applications, and directions for future research.

Project Strengths

In reflecting on the strengths of this project, I came to the conclusion that the

greatest strength lies in the potential growth of teachers and students’ learning. This

project provides an avenue by which teachers can gain valuable knowledge and the

necessary skills for technology integration. As teachers learn and integrate newfound

knowledge, the impact on student growth will become more evident. In reviewing

information from the surveys, it is evident that high-quality technology development

plays a crucial role in teachers’ ability to integrate technology into the curriculum.

The use of professional learning communities to teach and support teachers creates a

healthy climate as a foundation for teachers’ growth. The benefit of professional

learning communities is an atmosphere in which to build social interactions in an

environment that is fun and conducive to learning. Researchers have endorsed

professional learning communities as a way to build teachers’ competence in their

content.

Recommendations for Remediation of Limitations

In this project, the limitations include a lack of trainers for the different

subject matter areas. Another limitation of this project is the fact that it is limited to

one training day per month. On this day, a substitute is provided for all teachers in a

particular content area and by grade level. A final limitation of this project relates to

funding and other obligations for teachers. The training provides new strategies to

integrate technology, but funding does not permit the acquisition of new

technologies for teachers who are advanced and very knowledgeable concerning the

technology that currently exists on this campus.

Alternative Approaches

It would be more beneficial if an initial training took place with a lead trainer

and the department heads. Due to lack of time to train department heads and have

them train teachers, I opted to start the training with everyone at the same time. If

department heads were trained in different aspects of technology integration, they

could then modify the lesson for their content area and deliver the training in their

department’s grade-level meetings. In this way, the trainings could be more

personalized, and participants might be more comfortable working hand in hand

with their department heads. Although it might be beneficial to host minisessions

once a week after school, time constraints prevent this from happening. An

alternative to address the problem of financial constraints would be to allow teachers

to research and apply for grants or other source of funding that could be used for

purchasing new and advanced technology.

Scholarship

The learning knowledge acquired through this project has been a tremendous

asset to me. Contouring the staff development to fit the needs of individuals within

small learning communities can yield great benefits. The knowledge I have gained

as a scholar will allow me to further develop my understanding of technology

integration in various subject matter areas. More importantly, the process has

assisted me in creating a platform on which I can continue to train others to obtain

skills they need in this age of technology growth and student learning. Through the

research process, I could not help but notice the enormous amount of research on

technology in education being published on a regular basis. In addition, my learning

experience extended to the utmost appreciation for the patience and dedication

shown in this process by my family, friends, coworkers, and committee members.

Project Development and Evaluation

The development of this project required numerous hours of research and

planning. After much consideration, the project that appeared to be most effective

was developed. Upon careful review of survey results, it was evident that

technologybased professional development was needed before technology

integration could grow in every content area. It was also evident that teachers learn

at different paces and would benefit from a smaller learning environment. As a

result, professional learning communities seem to be an excellent option to merge

technology training and a smallgroup atmosphere. My research indicated that

professional learning communities appear to be beneficial in allowing trainers to

move around small groups and work with individuals during particular trainings. In

light of the need for some teachers to review the information for a second time, it

was apparent that recording and archiving step-by-step videos of the trainings would

prove to be vital for many teachers.

Leadership and Change

While researching and developing this project, my knowledge was broadened

by the learning experience. I found a key component that lies within the

empowerment of the participants. Many teachers believe that they are being heard

when time is taken to ask for their input into their learning (Darling-Hammond &

McLaughlin, 2011). As a leader, I find it necessary to build on this foundation of

success in teacher and administrative collaboration. It is my belief that as a change

agent, I have the ability to create a positive impact within our school that may have a

domino effect that creates a positive impact on our students and our community. I

have also found that it will be necessary in the upcoming year to create a program

where teachers who are new to our campus will be able to benefit from previous and

future trends that involve the integration of technology. With the development of

technology-based professional learning communities, teachers become empowered

to make a difference in their lives, the lives of their students, and the relationship

with our community.

Analysis of Self as Scholar

Relationship, rigor, and relevance are three things that I have found to be

necessary to the growth of people. Through this project, I have found that the most

beneficial of those three things is relationship. I have often heard that “people don’t

care what you know until they know that you care.” This process has shown me that

as a scholar, I must open my eyes and ears to see and hear what others have

experienced. I have learned that in communicating with others, information may not

be received in the way I expect. Through this experience, I have developed a greater

understanding of how to conduct staff development for people representing a variety

of learning styles and abilities.

As I was gathering and analyzing the data that was associated with this

project, it became evident that the hardships of technology integration from EFG

Middle School were similar to difficulties experienced in many schools across our

nation. Through this process, I have been motivated and empowered to continue the

quest for more technology integration on every continent. It is my desire to first

mirror this project in every school within this district and then broaden the training

to other cities and states. This process has given me a newfound understanding of

perseverance and determination; it has motivated me to go on and do greater things.

Analysis of Self as Practitioner

As a practitioner, I have experienced growth as an administrator through

lessons learned in my communication and social experiences with the teachers of

EFG Middle School. My abilities as a leader, teacher, coach, and resource person

were strengthened through this process. I am able to reflect on my time as a novice

teacher as well as a seasoned teacher in an effort to create a project from another

person’s perspective. One of the most rewarding experiences for me has been the

camaraderie that this experience has developed.

In education, we push ourselves to be lifelong learners. To enhance learning

experiences, educators should share their knowledge with leaders and trainers who

allow teachers to reflect, share, and facilitate staff development. It is my belief that

when teachers begin training each other, they increase the skills they possess as

well. I have learned that it is important to give teachers a voice in an effort to build a

solid, cohesive community.

Analysis of Self as Project Developer

Reading, listening, and practicing are essential components to being a great

developer and facilitator of staff developments. As a project developer, I have

learned to look at many different viewpoints and approaches that can be taken in

training. In addition, developing this project has reiterated the fact that each trainer

must take into account the auditory, visual, and kinesthetic learning styles of the

participants when developing lessons. This is accomplished by designing lessons

that incorporate the different styles into the application of the lesson. Finally, it is

my observation that to create and deliver a successful project requires the support of

all stakeholders.

The Project’s Potential Impact on Social Change

In retrospect, as I reflect over the process involved in this research project, it

was at times daunting and overwhelming. Through this process I have learned to

lean on my committee chair for support. My level of patience and perseverance has

been tried, tested, and strengthened through this process. I have learned that

soliciting a team of supporters can help boost your determination. Effective

communication is an essential skill that is needed when taking on projects of this

magnitude. When taking on projects of this magnitude, I have had times of

frustration and lack of willpower. I have also had many experiences that were

positive and beneficial to my growth as a leader and as an individual. In the quest to

achieve success, there are people who are willing to go above and beyond to assist

but as the person on this journey, I have found that my communication must be clear

and concise.

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research

It takes a lot of things to develop a quality product. When working with

teachers, it is important to solicit feedback in an effort to invoke a feeling of

empowerment. As administrators it is equally important to empower and encourage

all stakeholders to reach their full potential. When teachers are required to attend

staff developments, solicit their input in order to make the training relevant to them.

Based on the data, teachers would agree that quality staff development is needed for

technology integration. Administration and teachers could agree that the

technologybased professional learning communities are an inexpensive option for

all.

At the conclusion of the 2014/2015 school years, first steps of this program

would be completed. The second step of the program would be to duplicate the first

series of trainings on other campuses. By the end of the 2015/2016 school year, it is

my goal to have similar training programs in every school in this district. Beginning

in 2016/2017, my goal is to distribute samples of the technology professional

learning communities to various school districts across our nation. Future research

could include:

•Studying the impact of small technology learning communities with

students as a way to integrate technology in to their homework

assignments.

•Studying the impact of small technology learning communities for

parents as a way to provide trainings that will assist them in guiding their

student when working at home.

•Studying the impact of small technology learning communities at the

college level to measure the success of students who are taking distance

learning classes versus students that are enrolled in traditional classes.

•Studying the impact of small technology learning communities as a

distant learning style of training to assess the pros and cons of leaning

from different off campus sites.

100

Reflection on the Importance of the Work

In this age of technology, the need for continuous development of knowledge

and skills for the workplace has never been greater. This project is a creative

platform for technology-based professional learning communities across our nation.

Based on my research, there is a need for more staff developments that can satisfy

the need to balance effectiveness and time constraints for all teachers. The impact of

this project will grow rapidly within our school and has the potential to have an

instant impact across our district. The creation of this project will allow stakeholders

to view the benefits of staff developments from a different perspective.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has afforded me the opportunity to reflect on the

journey and experiences of this research project. This study adds to the existing

research on how staff developments impact the integration of technology into the

curriculum. This study shows a positive correlation between technology-based staff

developments and the integration of technology into the curriculum. Participants

seem open to sharing their technology success and limitations for the benefit of this

study. I believe that participants gave valuable information in hopes of opening

dialog about best practices in technology integration.

Through the data collected in my research, I am developing technology-

based professional learning community programs that would allow educators to

learn strategies to integrate technology into their curriculum. The quality of a teacher

is directly linked to the quality of the staff development he or she received

(Hamilton, 2014). Learning communities are utilized as a method to provide quality

101

professional developments while providing continuous ways for educators to change

and improve their knowledge and skills. In the world of education, professional

learning communities are vital to producing a system that enables teachers to

collaborate and learn from one another’s knowledge and experience (DuFour, 2007).

It is my belief that technology based professional learning communities will be an

ongoing process through which teachers and administrators will work

collaboratively to seek and share learning and to act on their learning. This project

study will aid educators in their goal to enhance their effectiveness as professionals

for the benefit of their students. This study also afforded me the opportunity to add

my personal reflections as a scholar, practitioner, and project developer. It is my

belief that the potential impact of this project on social change and future research is

great and will be beneficial for a long time to come.

An Assessment of Middle School Teachers' Efforts to Integrate Technology Effectively

Students also viewed