High School Science Teachers' Perspectives on Their
Technology Knowledge, Content, and Pedagogy
Section 1: The Problem
The Local Problem
For several years, school districts across the United States have relied on
technology to drive classroom instruction in science courses to improve student learning
outcomes (Reiss & Millar, 2014; Xie & Reider, 2014). Districts, teachers, and students
benefit the most from technology when teachers are effectively integrating and using
technology to facilitate classroom instruction (Acikalin, 2014; Bang & Luft, 2013;
Fozdar, 2015; Hur, Shannon, & Wolf, 2016; Kintu & Zhu, 2016). Across the United
States, science teachers are expected to use educational technology to deliver effective
pedagogical instruction in science classrooms (National Science Teachers Association
[NSTA], 2015). Despite this expectation, many science teachers remain uncertain about
how to integrate technology in their classroom teaching in a manner consistent with
NSTA’s science reform practices (NSTA, 2015). According to the NSTA, effectively
integrating technology into science classrooms helps to support student learning in
schools.
The challenges confronting teachers seeking to integrate technology into science
classrooms have been found to be associated with various factors (Carver, 2016). One of
the key factors is how teachers integrate technology into science classroom instruction to
improve student learning outcomes (Carver, 2016; DePountis, Pogrund, Griffin-Shirley,
& Lan, 2015; Eristi & Dindar, 2012; Rehmat & Bailey, 2014; Sparapani & Calahan,
2015). Other factors associated with teachers’ challenges in integrating technology into
the classroom include teachers’ confidence in technology use and the time devoted to
technology instruction in the classroom. Adequate research is lacking regarding how
teachers can effectively use educational technology tools for classroom instruction to
improve student-centered learning, engagement, performance, task accomplishment, and
achievement in science (DePountis et al., 2015; Dolenc & Abersek, 2015; Schmidt &
Fulton, 2016). Further research studies may help school administrators to recommend
strategies that will enable teachers to facilitate technology integration into the curriculum
to improve students’ learning outcomes.
Definition of the Problem
There are challenges to technology integration in science education that can
hinder the effectiveness of this effort (Gibson, 2013; Gofron, 2014). The general problem
associated with technology integration impedes teachers’ delivery of effective instruction
in science classrooms. At the project study site, a gap in practice exists in that it is
unknown how teachers integrate technology into their classroom teaching to improve
students’ learning in science. Science teachers require assistance in using technology to
facilitate instruction in science classrooms. In an internal data report on the 2013-2015
technology integration plan in the study district, district leadership revealed that teachers
in the science department did not integrate technology into their classroom teaching based
on the professional development (PD) learning provided to them on the appropriate use of
technology to aid students’ learning outcomes in science education.
According to the internal report mentioned above, district leadership invested
$13,456,379 in 2016 on technology integration with the goal of improving student
learning outcomes in all subject areas, including science. This urban high school acquired
new software and hardware to support teachers’ technology integration efforts to
facilitate classroom instruction. The technological investment by this southeastern U.S.
school district was an initiative supported by the International Society for Technology in
Education (ISTE, 2016). According to ISTE, technology use alone does not adequately
enhance students’ academic skills; rather, the technological skills that students acquired
in classrooms can enable them to coordinate research investigations and learning
activities in science. Sun, Chee-Kit, and Wenting (2014) reported that teachers played a
vital role in integrating technology to facilitate science instruction. Xie and Reider (2014)
posited that school districts should increase their support for teachers to enable them to
integrate technology successfully to enhance teaching and learning outcomes in science.
According to the project study district’s 2013-2015 technology integration plan,
the technological investment to increase teachers’ classroom instructional delivery in the
science department at the project study site was unsuccessful. The leadership team at the
project study site observed that teachers’ difficulty in making academic gains with
technology in science could be attributed to various factors, including how teachers
integrated technology into their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning
outcomes in science. Despite district efforts to increase student learning using technology
in science courses, student test scores on the science portion of the Georgia High School
Graduation Test (GHSGT) remained low, according to the district’s 2013-2015
technology integration plan, indicating the existence of a possible problem at the local
level. According to the Georgia Department of Education (GDE) Accountability
Division, 85.4% of 12th grade students in southeastern U.S. school district scored below
500 points, which is the score required to pass the science portion of the GHSGT (GDE,
2014, 2015).
The specific local problem and professional practice gap addressed in this
bounded qualitative case study were that it was unknown how teachers at the project
study site implemented technology and described their technology, pedagogy, and STEM
content knowledge to improve students’ learning outcomes in science. Dimirel and Aslan
(2014) asserted that effective integration of technology in the science curriculum
improved student-centered learning, engagement, performance, and task accomplishment,
which ultimately increased student achievement. Wang, Hsu, Campbell, Coster, and
Longhurst (2014) concurred and argued that sustaining technology integration in science
depends on teacher application of technology tools in the classroom environment. The
21st-century learner needs to develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills to
function in a technology-integrated science classroom (Flogie & Abersek, 2015; Ramma,
Samy, & Gopee, 2015). Other researchers (Al Musawi, Ambusaidi, Al-Balushi, &
AlBalushi, 2015; Bilek, 2016; Campbell & Rivas, 2012; Fozdar, 2015; Shien & Tsai,
2015) have called for further investigation in the area of technology integration to
enhance students’ learning outcomes in science.
In this study, I sought to obtain an understanding of how teachers at the project
study site integrated technology into their teaching to improve student learning outcomes
in science classrooms. Such knowledge should be an asset for school administrators to
understand teachers’ perspectives on the challenges to technology integration in the
science classroom setting at the project study site.
Rationale
Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level
Many scholars have reinforced the need to integrate technology for effective
teaching and learning (Schrum & Levin, 2016). The study district had not been successful
in achieving technology integration benefits in the science department at the project study
site. A need existed to further investigate this gap in instructional delivery with
technology.
According to data from the GDE’s Accountability Division, 85.4% of 12th-grade
students in the science department at the project study site scored below 500 points,
which is the passing score required for the science portion of the GHSGT (GDE, 2014,
2015, 2016). When students’ test grades in science were compared to their performance
in other subject areas at the project study site, 81.2% of students’ test grades remained
low in science (GDE, 2016). Further, data from GDE’s Accountability Division indicated
that in a climate survey conducted by school administrators at the study site, 95.5% of
teachers expressed the belief that students were not learning relevant science content
materials necessary to pass science.
According to an internal data report from the 2013-2015 technology integration
plan, teachers in the science department did not understand how to integrate technology
in their classroom teaching based on the PD learning provided to them on the appropriate
use of technology to aid students’ learning in science education. Despite the purchase of
new computer software and the provision of professional learning for teachers to increase
students’ learning in science, students’ test scores in science remained low. More
effective technology integration in science instruction and projects to improve students’
learning outcomes in the science department may help teachers in increasing
studentcentered learning, engagement, performance, task accomplishment, and
achievement levels. Research literature reviewed for this study supported the notion that
effective technology integration in science instruction improves students’ learning
outcomes.
Several prominent science and technology researchers have examined issues
related to technology integration in science. Researchers have found that effective
technology integration in science instruction and projects improves students’ learning
outcomes (Baser, Ozden, & Karaarslan, 2017; Doleric & Abersek, 2015; Laine, Nygren,
Dirin, & Suk, 2016; Potter, Ernst, & Glennie, 2017; Pringle, Dawson, & Ritzhaupt,
2015). Moreover, the above-mentioned researchers asserted that it is critical for teachers
to integrate technology into their classroom teaching practices in district schools across
the United States. Based on the research literature reviewed, it is important to conduct
further investigations on teachers’ use of technology in district schools across the United
States. This recommendation for further investigation was instrumental in researching the
problem with science teachers at the local site.
Evidence of the Problem From the Professional Literature
As part of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), U.S. teachers were required to
integrate technology into their curricula to enhance students’ learning and close
achievement gaps in science (Wang, Hsu, Campbell, Coster, & Longhurst, 2014). Years
after the passage of ESSA, teachers in the United States have not made adequate progress
to integrate technology into the science curriculum. Bang and Luft (2013) argued that
there is uncertainty among teachers on how to integrate technology in the science
curriculum.
Affirming the scarcity of research studies in technology integration, Schmidt and
Fulton (2016) attested that few research studies had reported on teachers’ overall progress
toward effective technology integration. Sparapani and Callahan (2015) maintained that
achievement gaps tend to widen when adequate supports are not given to low-performing
students in science with technology. In addition, Rehmat and Bailey (2014) posited that
despite the increased availability of technology for instruction in classrooms, it is
unknown how teachers integrated technology in their classroom teaching to improve
students’ learning outcomes in science. Reiss and Millar (2014) concurred and argued
that for technology integration to be effective in classroom instruction, it is imperative for
teachers to understand how to integrate technology into their science curriculum.
According to ISTE (2016), technology integration alone does not adequately
enhance students’ learning. The skills that students acquire through technology using
simulations, games, videos, animations, and virtual laboratories instead help them in
classroom activities and task accomplishment. ISTE has recommended strategies for
technology integration to assist students in learning. ISTE has also recommended other
methods of technology integration to assist teachers in facilitating classroom instruction
effectively. The district in this study used ISTE strategies in order to bolster teachers’
effective technology integration into classroom instruction. According to the technology
coordinator in the southeastern U.S. school district, the teachers received professional
learning on the appropriate use of technology to aid students’ learning outcomes in
science education. However, this resulted in negligible gain in students’ academic
growth. Due to the students’ negligible academic gain in science with technology, it was
unknown how teachers integrated technology into their classroom teaching to improve
students’ learning outcomes in science.
ISTE (2016) asserted that technology integration is an educational strategy to
transform teaching and learning in the classroom to enhance students’ learning outcomes.
It was necessary to conduct a study to examine how high school teachers integrated
technology in their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in science.
This qualitative case study examined how STEM teachers integrated technology in their
classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in science using the strategies
and recommendations of ISTE with other prominent science and technology researchers
cited in the professional literature. The purpose of this bounded qualitative case study was
to examine how teachers integrated technology in their classroom teaching to improve
students’ learning outcomes in science.
Definition of Terms
Active learning: Learning that focuses on student engagement and provides
students the opportunity to inquire, explore, collaborate, and experience other forms of
discovery (Bryant et al., 2013).
Adequate yearly progress (AYP): A measure to determine whether a public school
or school district is meeting its required annual progress as established by the state (GDE,
2013).
Blended learning: An educational approach in which students learn in part
through digital delivery and online media, and in which students control the pacing of
learning overtime (Guler & Sahin, 2015).
Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS): Guidelines regarding
skills and knowledge that students in Georgia must master to succeed beyond high school
in core content areas (GDE, 2013).
Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT): A competency-based test
administered in the spring semester of a student’s 11th-grade year to determine a student’s
proficiency in English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and writing
(GDE, 2013).
Georgia Performance Standards (GPS): Expectations set by the GDE for
instruction, assessment, and student work. The performance standards enable students to
master the skills needed to solve a problem, reason, and communicate in order to make
connections with other information (GDE, 2013).
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE): A nonprofit
organization that serves educators and education leaders who empower learners to
succeed in a connected world. The organization serves over 100,000 education
stakeholders throughout the world (ISTE, 2016).
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA): This national association for
science teachers takes the position that computers should have a major role in the
teaching and learning of science. Computers have become essential classroom tools for
“the acquisition, analysis, presentation, and communication of data in ways that allow
students to become active participants in research and learning” (NSTA, 2015, p. 2).
Professional development (PD): A specialized training and/or workshop intended
to help teachers, administrators, and all educators to improve their professional
knowledge and skills in the workplace (Murthy, Iyer, & Warriem, 2015).
Professional learning environment: Any collection of resources and content that
students have chosen to use in directing their own learning at their own pace (Johnson,
Adams, & Cummins, 2012).
Simulation: A process of developing a model that enables students to imitate the
operation of real-world situations over time (Adams et al., 2012).
Serious gaming: Simulations of real-world events designed to assist students in
problem solving during classroom instruction (Adams et al., 2012).
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): An educational
program designed to prepare all students for college and graduate study. The main
objective of STEM is to improve investigation and inquiries, logical reasoning, and
collaboration skills among students (Yildirim & Sidekli, 2018).
Student-centered learning: An instructional approach driven primarily by
students’ needs rather than by teachers’ directives (Bachtold, 2013).
Technology integration: The use of computer tools such as desktop computers,
laptops, handheld computers, software, or Internet in K-12 schools for instructional
purposes (Acikalin, 2014).
Technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK): A conceptual
framework that a teacher needs in order to understand how to implement effective
pedagogical practice in a technology-enhanced learning environment (Koehler, Mishra,
& Cain, 2013).
Significance of the Study
Through the investigation of this problem, the southeastern U.S. school district
may receive data to use in decision making and policy formulation. Notably, this study
could improve student learning outcomes in science by enabling decision makers and
stakeholders to align policy and channel resources where needed. According to an
internal data report from the southeastern school district’s 2013-2015 technology
integration plan, the U.S. Department of Education mandated that school districts invent a
plan to enable teachers to become competent in technology integration to promote
students’ learning. Consequently, the significance of the problem for this study may
directly influence students’ learning outcomes.
Eristi, Kurt, and Dindar (2012) discussed the importance of teachers’ technology
use to facilitate classroom instruction. Eristi et al. reported on the relevance and
importance of technology integration, asserting that it can shape the future of students’
learning in society. Eristi et al. contended that districts should focus more on
technological application to promote students’ learning and educational growth.
Mitten, Jacobbe, and Jacobbe (2017) discussed how teachers should integrate
technology in schools, addressing lesson resources, organization, effectiveness,
collaboration with other teachers, and connections with parents. Lee (2017) concurred
and asserted that some of the technology integration benefits for teachers in the classroom
included lesson effectiveness and instructional collaboration among teachers. Therefore,
the significance of this study rests in its potential to have a direct influence on teachers’
technology integration in classroom instruction.
Research Question(s)
The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers integrated technology in
their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in science. In alignment
with the local problem and the purpose of this study, I developed two research questions
that were critical to the “shaping and direction” of this qualitative case study (Merriam,
2009):
RQ1: How do high school science teachers at a southeastern school district
implement technology in STEM classes?
RQ2: How do high school science teachers at a southeastern school district
describe their technology, pedagogy, and STEM content knowledge?
Review of the Literature
In this section, I present a critical discussion of the literature related to technology
integration in science curriculum in the United States. In this study, the purpose of the
literature review was to identify and analyze research information pertaining to
educators’ integration of technology in their classroom teaching. The databases used to
search the current literature pertaining to technology integration were ERIC, Education
Research Complete, and Education for SAGE. The search terms used to find applicable
articles were technology, technology integration, technology use, information and
communications technology (ICT) integration, and education technology. Over 50 articles
published within the past 5 years were reviewed in writing the literature review.
In this literature review, I begin with a discussion of the conceptual framework,
which is followed by a review of literature related to the broader problem. The literature
search encompassed sources addressing the use of technology integration for effective
classroom instruction and technology integration in schools. I explored literature related
to school leadership’s role in technology integration, the effective implementation of
technology integration in secondary science education, and the importance of effectively
implementing technology in education. I complete the literature review with a discussion
of technology integration and school policy making, barriers to effectively implementing
technology integration in schools, and educational technology integration tools used in
science, ending with a conclusion.
Conceptual Framework
In this project study, I used technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge
(TPACK) as the conceptual framework. TPACK as a framework was advanced by
Mishra and Koehler (2006) and builds on Shulman’s (1986) theory concerning the need
for teachers to draw on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Shulman’s theory
indicates that mere content knowledge may be pedagogically useless as a content
teaching skill without the implementation of technology knowledge (p. 8). Teachers must
have knowledge of their content, know how to teach the content, and know how to
deliver instruction in the specific content areas they teach. According to Shulman, these
are different types of knowledge needed by teachers for pedagogical classroom
instruction. In further argument, Koehler and Mishra (2009) emphasized that teachers’
technology knowledge must encompass ways of thinking about technology, working with
technology tools, resources about technology use in our daily lives, and understanding
when technology information is beneficial or not when working to achieving a goal.
The TPACK model by Lee and Kim (2014) was selected for this study because
the framework’s constructs align with the concepts in the problem. In this study, the
TPACK framework constructs also served as a coding template for data analysis (Lee &
Kim, 2014) to analyze how teachers used technology integration in their classroom
teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes. The TPACK framework guided data
collection and analysis (Lee & Kim, 2014) to explain and confirm how teachers
implemented technology integration in their classroom teaching. The three components of
TPACK (technology knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, and content knowledge) assisted
me in analyzing qualitative data to answer the research questions posed in this study.
The TPACK framework contained the typologies that I used to analyze the data.
In a research study, Tondeur et al.(2012) argued that using key themes for content and
instructional delivery methods is critical in preparing teachers to implement technology
effectively in their classroom teaching in secondary education. Davies (2011) validated
this notion, positing that content and delivery methods played a major role in the analysis
of teachers’ effective implementation of technology integration in their instruction. The
use of themes associated with content and instructional delivery methods served as the
initial themes for analyzing data, as well as a means to provide more detailed and
accurate analysis. Ultimately, typological analysis provided the answers needed for the
research questions posed in this study.
The TPACK model as a coding template. I used the TPACK model as a guide
to analyze the approaches that teachers used to implement technology integration in their
classroom teaching. Several researchers asserted that the TPACK model was effective in
providing a framework to understand teachers’ technology knowledge, pedagogical
knowledge, and content knowledge needed for effectively implementing technology
integration into their classroom teaching in science (Celik, Sahin, & Akturk, 2014;
Cengiz, 2015; Harris, Grandgenett, & Hofer, 2012; Tomte, Enochsson, Buskqvist, &
Karstein, 2015; Van Driel & Berry, 2012).
The TPACK model consists of three components: technology knowledge,
pedagogical knowledge, and content knowledge (Tomte et al., 2015; Voogt, Fisser, Pareja
Robin, Tondeur, & Van Braak, 2013). These three components in the TPACK model are
critical for teachers to effectively implement technology integration in their classroom
teaching using adequate instructional strategies because they enable teachers to facilitate
effective classroom instruction and activities in science (Cavanagh & Koehler, 2013;
Doering, Koseoglu, Scharber, Henrickson, & Lanegran, 2014; Koehler et al., 2013; Koh,
Chai, & Lee, 2015; Pringle, Dawson, & Ritzhaupt, 2015).
In a research study by Cavanagh and Koehler (2013), the implementation of the
TPACK model using a seven-criterion lens was used to measure the success and
challenges of effectively implementing technology integration in the classroom setting.
Teachers used a seven-criterion lens checklist based on the TPACK model to make
important decisions in the classroom. The results supported reliable and valid
measurements in TPACK. Cavanagh and Koehler found that positive measurement
principles and techniques helped other researchers to ensure reliable and valid
measurement in TPACK research.
The TPACK model can be used to support teachers in instructional methods and
delivery of information to their students in the classroom setting (Khan, 2014). Koh
(2013) argued that the success of using the TPACK model is dependent on teachers’
strategies for implementing technology during classroom instruction. Researchers
asserted that effectively implementing the TPACK model as a framework is dependent on
teachers’ ability and understanding to facilitate the use of modern educational
technologies for their students during classroom instruction (Brantley-Dias & Ertmer,
2013; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Koehler, Mishra, Kereluik, Shin, & Graham, 2014; Koh
& Divaharan, 2013; Lin, Tsai, Chai, & Lee, 2013).
Lee and Kim (2014) contended that the application of the TPACK model has
improved the implementation of technology integration in teachers’ classroom teaching
and students’ academic growth in secondary education. In support of this notion, Mishra,
Koehler, Schmidt, Baran, & Thompson (2009) argued that the TPACK model has
provided strategies for resolving difficulties encountered by teachers during technology
integration in their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes. Mishra et
al. posited that the TPACK model can be used to help teachers implement, describe, as
well as document their technology and teaching skills. Mishira et al. maintained that the
TPACK model can help teachers evaluate and effectively implement technology
integration in their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes.The
TPACK model can be used to help teachers manage their instructional delivery and
effectively implement technology integration in science.
The TPACK framework analysis was used to answer the research questions and
support the problem and purpose of this study because it is a theory that was developed to
explain the three sets of knowledge that teachers need to effectively teach their students
in the classroom with technology (Lee & Kim, 2014). Figure 1 shows a conceptual map
depicting how science teachers’ use or application of TPACK and educational technology
tools may enhance student-centered learning, engagement, performance, task
accomplishment, and achievement levels in secondary science education.
Figure 1.Conceptual research model of the current study.
Student-centered learning. Student-centered learning is a type of instructional
approach, learning experience, and academic support to address the learning interests,
desires, and cultural backgrounds of the learners. To achieve student-centered learning in
the classroom setting, teachers and administrators in schools can use instructional
delivery methods and strategies to effectively transform students’ learning outcomes
(Dondlinger, McLeod, & Vasinda, 2016).
Student engagement. The engagement of students in the classroom setting refers
to the degree of motivation, interest, and curiosity that students exhibited during
instructional activities. Teachers’ facilitation of classroom learning increases when
students are inquisitive and inspired about the content materials to be taught (Yin & Ke,
2017).
Teachers’ use of
technology
Educational
technology tools
TPACK
Student-centered
learning
Student engagement
Student performance
Student task
accomplishment
Student achievement
Student performance. Student performance in the classroom is determined
through individual self-assessment of instructional assignments and projects. Students’
self-assessment is the process whereby students use specific criteria to evaluate and
reflect on their own work. Ultimately, the process helps students become more
responsible for their own learning. Additionally, students are more focused and prepared
to work with the teacher to develop individual self-assessment learning goals (Wang,
Hwang, Liang, & Wang, 2017).
Student task accomplishment. Research literature indicated that the time
students spend on classroom tasks is positively associated with academic growth.
Students who are actively participating in their quest for knowledge acquisition and skill
development take control of their learning in the classroom setting. These students will
perform at high levels of task accomplishment during classroom instruction, projects, and
activities (Mundilarto & Helmiyanto, 2017).
Student achievement. Student achievement in the classroom setting refers to the
level of academic mastery of content materials that students develop in a particular period
of time based on learning goals or instructional standards. Student achievement increases
as the quality of teachers’ classroom instruction improves (Deniz & Hatice-Oztburk,
2017).
Review of the Broader Problem
Use of Technology Integration for Effective Classroom Instruction
Educators have come to understand that integration of technology in classroom
instruction for students made 21st-century learning possible (Sadaf, Newby, & Ertmer,
2016). Waters, Kenna, and Bruce (2016) posited that an essential feature for effective
classroom instruction in district schools is integrating technology effectively in classroom
instruction. According to Waters et al.’s study, integration of technology involves using
technology resources for effective classroom instruction, including computers, mobile
devices such as smartphones and tablets, digital cameras, social media platforms and
networks, software applications, and the Internet. Waters et al. argued that these
technological resources and tools are needed for effective classroom instruction in daily
routine practices in secondary schools. Hollingsworth and Lim (2015) argued that
effective classroom instruction is achieved when teachers’ use of technology is routine,
accessible, transparent, and readily available to solve classroom seatwork tasks,
supporting curriculum goals and objectives and assisting students in attaining mastery
skills.
Hutchison and Woodward (2014) argued that with the adoption of the common
core state standards by most states, the use of digital tools for effective classroom
instruction has become of great significance to educators. Hutchison and Woodward’s
study further indicated that effective classroom instruction is achieved when students are
actively engaged in projects using technology integrated tools as a seamless part of the
learning process. Muilenburg and Berge (2015) concurred, positing that for effective
classroom instruction to be achieved, seamless technology integration must occur during
classroom instruction. Seamless integration is achieved when students do not have
technology available to them daily but have access to a variety of technology tools for
classroom seatwork tasks and have the opportunity to build in-depth knowledge of the
content.
Shlossberg and Cunningham (2016) contended that effective classroom instruction
is achieved when students can use technology tools to obtain information on time,
analyze and synthesize information, and present the information to other students.
Almeida, Jameson, Riesen, and McDonnell (2016) posited that effective classroom
instruction is achieved when technology combined with instruction increases learning and
provides students access to current primary source materials in schools. Researchers have
asserted that effective classroom instruction is achieved when the integration of
technology provides teachers and students with methods of collecting data, ways to
collaborate with others, opportunities for expressing knowledge using multimedia,
relevant learning, authentic assessment, and training for presenting new knowledge
(Denis, 2016; Gibson et al., 2014; Kramer, Neugebauer, Magenheim, & Huppertz, 2015;
LeMire, 2016; Van Horne, Russell, & Schuh, 2016).
According to a research study by Sparapani and Calahan (2015), the integration of
technology includes varied tools and instructional practices. Technology may be
integrated into classroom instruction and the learning process in a variety of ways to
promote students’ learning outcomes in district schools. For example, integrating
technology into the classroom may include the use of online learning, blended
classrooms, project-based and research-based activities incorporating technology,
gamebased learning and assessment, learning with mobile and handheld devices, and
other instructional tools. Instructional technology integrated tools in the classroom
include interactive whiteboards, web-based projects, explorations, and research. Reiss
and Millar (2014) supported this notion and posited that effective classroom instruction
using technology can be achieved in schools if teachers receive appropriate professional
learning on implementing educational technology into the curriculum to enhance
students’ learning. Implementing adequate professional learning in schools can support
teachers’ use of instructional technology tools in the classroom setting to improve
students’ learning outcomes.
Integration of Technology in Schools
Across the United States, school district personnel have encouraged the effective
implementation of technology as a measure to reform teachers’ instructional practices in
the classroom setting (Farisi, 2016). Carver (2016) argued that effectively implementing
technology and eliminating barriers to implementation in classroom instruction increased
students’ academic achievement in K-12 schools. Hsu (2016) concurred and asserted that
effectively implementing technology has the potential to reform classroom instructional
practices in various districts in the United States. According to the literature, schools
make adequate yearly progress (AYP) and increase academic gains for students with
varied learning styles by effectively implementing technology in classroom instruction
(Roohi, Ahmad, & Jalal-ud-din, 2016; Scrabis-Fletcher, Juniu, & Zullo, 2016; Woo,
2015). Researchers have argued that educators should implement technology in
classroom instruction to assist district schools in achieving the most favorable teaching
and learning outcomes (Brenner & Brill, 2016; Elmendorf & Song, 2015; Hao & Lee,
2015; Lim, 2015; Pittman & Gaines, 2015; Ritzhaupt, Huggins-Manley, Dawson, Agacli-
Dogan, & Dogan, 2017).
Effectively implementing technology would help teachers in facilitating classroom
instruction that enables students to learn and make significant academic gain
(Crompton, Olszewski, & Bielefeidt, 2016; Gonczi, Maeng, Bell, & Whitworth, 2016; Yu
& Prince, 2016). Sparapani and Calahan (2015) argued that technology integration in
mathematics and science instruction in secondary education offered the most support in
teaching and learning to improve students’ academic outcomes.
The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE, 2016) personnel
recommended technological initiatives and strategies to support the implementation of
technology in the classroom. In addition, ISTE personnel recommended strategies to
eliminate barriers impeding technology integration and implementation in schools. ISTE
reported that technology use without students’ possessing adequate technological skills
does not improve academic growth. ISTE asserted that the technological skills students
acquired from technology integration in the classrooms enabled them to coordinate
classroom and learning activities in schools. ISTE standards indicated that teachers are
key factors in technology’s critical role in classroom instruction. ISTE standards outlined
advantages of effective technology integration that teachers can use to facilitate
classroom instructional practices. These included:
•Effectively implementing technology integration in classroom instruction
enabled teachers to inspire student learning and creativity (p. 3).
•Technology integration when effectively implemented in classroom
instruction enabled teachers to design and develop lesson activities that helped
to improve students’ learning and assessments (p. 3).
•Effectively implementing technology integration in teacher instructional
practices enabled them to model appropriate content materials to enhance
students’ academic outcomes (p. 3).
•When teachers integrate and effectively implement technology in classroom
instruction, they are able to provide appropriate formative and summative
assessments for students to improve academic achievement (p. 2).
•Technology integration when effectively implemented in teacher instructional
practices enabled them to engage in professional growth to enhance teaching
and learning outcomes (p. 3).
ISTE standards contain suggested strategies that district schools use as initiatives to
effectively implement technology integration to improve students’ learning outcomes.
ISTE standards advocate for districts to maximize their support for teacher’s use of
technology to facilitate classroom instruction in schools. In order to reap the benefits of
technology integration in schools, it is important to understand the role of research on
how to confront the barriers impeding effective technology use from the teachers’
perspectives.
School Leadership Role in Technology Integration
School administration and leadership influences effective teacher implementation
of technology in classroom instructional practices (Stevenson, Hedberg, O’Sullivan, &
Howe, 2016). Vennebo (2017) posited that a key factor in instructional reform was school
leadership’s ability to assist teachers to infuse technology into the curriculum to improve
students’ academic growth. Webster (2017) asserted that the school leadership team has a
major influence on teacher technological competencies because they supported teachers
to improve technology integration in classroom instructional practices. In addition, the
school leadership team supported teachers to increase student-centered learning,
according to Webster. Webster’s study emphasized the need for school principals to have
technological knowledge so that they can support teachers to effectively implement
technology integration into the curriculum. Hartley (2016) concurred, arguing that school
leadership is pivotal to students’ learning. Hartley maintained that the leadership team
must assist teachers to model appropriate technology integration in classroom instruction
to enhance student-centered learning, engagement, performance, task accomplishment,
and achievement levels.
Persichitte (2016) argued that school leadership should focus more on how
technology can effectively be implemented to promote students’ academic growth. In
support of this notion, Schrum and Levin (2016) contended that school leaders should
assist teachers to foster effective technology integration in classroom instruction to
improve students’ engagement and academic outcomes. Schrum and Levin’s study
advocated for school leadership to prepare students for their future technology
knowledge. Schrum and Levin emphasized the need to support teachers in adopting
pedagogies to enhance teaching and learning. Schrum and Levin’s research study
recommended for a systems approach (how technology can benefit schools) to embrace
technology implementation, address opportunities and challenges in infrastructure,
promote pedagogy, improve students’ learning, and teachers’ classroom instructional
practices. According to Schrum and Levin’s study, a system approach addresses how
technology usage can benefit district schools. A systems approach is a line of thought in
technology management which stresses the interactive nature and interdependence of
external and internal factors in an organization.
Affirming the quality of research in technology integration, Bogotch (2016)
posited that leadership in today’s schools should focus more in motivating and
encouraging teachers to implement technology effectively into the curriculum to enhance
students’ academic growth. Bogotch’s study emphasized that school leaders should
provide opportunities for teachers to facilitate meaningful instructional activities in the
classroom to improve students’ achievement. Waite (2016) concurred and postulated that
school leaders should encourage teachers to facilitate engaging instructional activities by
effectively implementing technology into the curriculum to enhance students’ academic
outcomes.
In support of school leadership in technology integration, ISTE (2016) standards
asserted that leaders should encourage the implementation of technology integration into
the curriculum to promote students’ optimal learning outcomes. According to ISTE
standards, the benefits of effectively implementing technology in school leadership
practices included the following:
•School leadership should focus on implementing technology into the
curriculum to support students’ learning goals and teacher effective
instructional practices to maximize academic achievement (p. 5).
•School leadership should communicate how to implement technologyinfused
strategies into the curriculum for teachers to improve classroom instructional
practices to promote student-centered learning (p. 5).
•School leadership should promote consistency in implementing technology
into the curriculum to improve student-centered learning, engagement,
performance, task accomplishment, and achievement levels in districts across
the United States (p. 7).
•School leadership should allocate time and resources to ensure meaningful
professional development for teachers to effectively implement technology
(p. 7).
•School leadership should facilitate learning communities for teachers to
improve classroom instructional practices to promote students’ engagement
and classroom seatwork activities (p. 5).
•School leadership should lead instructional reform initiatives for teachers to
maximize students’ learning goals through appropriate technology
integration into the curriculum (p. 5).
•School leadership should encourage teachers to engage students in "critical
thinking skills, problem solving, and decision making" by integrating
technology tools such as simulations, games, videos, animations, and virtual
laboratory in classroom instruction to enhance students’ learning (p. 7).
Meng and Law (2016) argued that school leadership should lead teachers to
instructional reform initiatives to ensure students’ academic excellence. In support of this
notion, Henriksen, Mishra, and Fisser (2016) maintained that school leadership efforts to
infuse creativity and technology into the curriculum can bring change in classroom
instructional practices to improve teaching and learning in the 21st-century education.
Researchers asserted that school leadership are faced with many challenges in
transforming instructional practices with technology integration, however, call for
educators to undertake PD opportunities in implementing technology that is adaptive to
instructional reform and change (Aidinopoulou & Sampson, 2017; Asuga, Scevak, &
Eacott, 2016; Stevenson et al., 2016; Wine, 2016; Winslow, Dickerson, Weaver, & Josey,
2016; Yurtseven &Altun, 2017).
Charania and Davis (2016) posited that school leaders must acquire the
knowledge to effectively implement technology integration to support students’ academic
needs and the learning environment so that they can lead instructional transformation
initiatives. The research studies conducted by Asuga, Scevak, and Eacott (2016);
Denham, Mayben, and Boman (2016); Law, Niederhauser, Christensen, and Shear (2016)
reinforced the notion that school leadership is pivotal to effectively implement
technology into curriculum and instruction to promote teaching and learning outcomes.
Effectively Implementing Technology in Secondary Science Education
The effective implementation of technology into instructional practices enhances
learning in science (Guler & Sahin, 2015). Timur, Yilmaz, and Timur (2013) contended
that science teachers with good instructional strategies are better able to assist other
teachers in effectively implementing technology in science instruction. Technology, when
implemented effectively, was found to enhance student academic skills and realworld
experience in science. Researchers asserted that science teachers with good technological
practices integrate technology in classroom activities and projects to enhance student-
centered learning, engagement, performance, task accomplishment, and achievement
levels (Bofill, 2013; Efe, 2015; Hechter & Vermette, 2013; Kanuka &
Rourke, 2013; Minor, Losike-Sedimo, Reglin, & Royster, 2013; Nierkerk & Blignaut,
2014; Owens, 2015; Pryor, Akyeampong, Westbrook, & Lussier, 2012; Sundeen &
Sundeen, 2013; Thomas & Ye, 2013). Bofill (2013) posited that students’ task
accomplishment were higher when technology were integrated into science lessons.
According to Bofill, students’ critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making
were higher when technology was effectively integrated into the curriculum.
Effective implementation of technology in the classroom enables teachers to
facilitate classroom instruction that enhances student-centered learning in science (Bang
& Luft, 2013; Ferreira, Baptista, & Arroio, 2013; Hakverdi-can & Dana, 2012; NSTA,
2015). Other studies concurred that effectively implementing technology assisted teachers
to create an appropriate learning climate and raise science skills for students with varied
learning styles (Gouseti, 2013; Hasni & Potvin, 2015; Kervin, Verenikina, Jones, &
Beath, 2013; Potvin & Hasni, 2014). The effective implementation of technology created
a learning environment that can increase students’ cognitive efficacy by helping students
to locate and create their own meaning and construct their own knowledge in science
(Farisi, 2016). Wen-Yu Lee and Tsai (2013) investigated this phenomenon and found that
students are actively engaged with technology in knowledge construction instead of
passively receiving information. Their findings concurred with those of other researchers
that teachers’ technology integration in teaching science increased students’ performance.
Effectively implementing technology in science classrooms enhanced students’
learning outcomes in laboratory work and simulations (Al Musawi, Ambusaidi,
AlBalushi, & Al-Balushi, 2015; Hechter & Vermette, 2013; Hilton & Hilton, 2013; Kim,
Kim, Lee, Spector, & DeMeester, 2013). Kayalar (2016) reported that the implementation
of technology assisted teachers to facilitate students’ use of computer software such as
virtual laboratory and simulations to retrieve information for science research studies and
other laboratory related projects. The implementation of technology through virtual
laboratory and simulations as a teaching tool is used to make required changes in science
to enhance student-centered learning (Acikalin, 2014; Elmas, Akin, & Geban, 2013;
Kovalik et al., 2014; Laferriere, Hane, & Searsont, 2013; Majid, 2014). Effective
implementation of technology enables teachers to facilitate classroom instruction to aid
student-centered learning in science.
Bang and Luft (2013) reported on the implementation of technology designed to
enhance the use of science experimental models and students’ clarification of science
laboratory investigations. Acikalin (2014) reinforced the need to use technology to aid
student-centered learning in science. Discovering avenues for technology implementation
and to combat barriers for effective technology integration in science instructional
practices is a challenge confronting teachers across district schools in the United States.
Below are the details of the educational technology tools recommended by the
southeastern U.S. school district for teachers to use and improve classroom teaching in
science. The name and key features of educational technology tools are displayed in
Table 1 below.
PhET Interactive Simulations Project of University of Colorado. According to
PhET Interactive Simulations Project of Colorado (https://phet.colorado.edu), the site
provides interactive mathematics simulations. The organization is testing and evaluating
each simulation to ensure educational effectiveness. All simulations are open source. The
sponsor of PhET project makes it possible for the resources to be free to all students and
teachers. The PhET Interactive Simulations Project is for students in all science subjects
and grades 6-12 (PhET Interactive Simulations Project, 2017).
The Concord Consortium Next-Generation Molecular Workbench.
According to Concord Consortium Next-Generation Workbench
(http://mw.concord.org/nextgen/#activities), the site provides visual, interactive,
computational experiments for teaching and learning science to improve students’
engagement and achievement levels. The Concord Consortium Next-Generation
Molecular Workbench is meant for students in biological sciences and grades 9-12
(Concord Consortium, 2017, p. 2).
The High Adventure Science project by Concord Consortium. According to
High Adventure Science Project by Concord Consortium (http://has.portal.concord.org),
use of the program injects contemporary earth and space science into the classroom to
improve students’ engagement, performance, and achievement levels. The High
Adventure Science Project is for students in all science subjects and grades 9-12
(Concord Consortium, 2017).
The Genetic Science Learning Center at the University of Utah. According to
Genetic Science Learning Center at the University of Utah (http://genetics.utah.edu), use
of the program translates science and health fields to non-experts to improve teaching and
learning thereby raising students’ achievement levels. The Genetic Science Learning
Center is for students in biological sciences and grades 9-12 (Genetic Science Learning
Center, 2017).
The WGBH Educational Foundation and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).
According to WGBH Educational Foundation and Public Broadcasting Service
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/guess-embryo.html), the site offers "media
resources appropriate for PreK-16 curriculum for use in the classrooms, homeschool, and
informal educational environments, such as after-school, community facilities, and
museums" to improve students’ engagement, performance, and achievement levels. The
WGBH Educational Foundation and Public Broadcasting service is for students in all
subject areas and grades PreK-12 (NOVA, 2017, p. 4).
YouTube. According to YouTube (https://youtube./uBG12BujkPQ), the site
provides a forum for people to connect, inform, inspire, and watch originally created
videos to improve students’ engagement, performance, and achievement levels. YouTube
is for students in all subject areas and grades PreK-12 (YouTube, 2017).
Kahoot. According to Kahoot (https://getkahoot.com), the site assists in
motivating participation through game-based learning and rewards in a classroom and
social setting to improve students’ engagement, performance, and achievement levels.
Kahoot is for students in all subject areas and grades 6-12 (Kahoot, 2017).
Table 1
Key Features of Educational Technology Integration Tools
Name of technology Features
PhET Interactive Simulations
(https://phet.colorado.edu)
Next-Generation Molecular
(http://nw.concord.org/nextgen#acti
vities)
High Adventure Science (HAS;
http://has.portal.concord.org)
University of Utah Genetics
(http://genetic.utah.edu)
NOVA Broadcasting Service
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evo
lution/guess-embryo.html)
YouTube
(https://youtube/uBG12BujKPQ)
Kahoot (https://getkahoot.com) Interactive,
research-based, effective, Java, Flash, or
HTML.5, visual, online, and free to users.
Interactive, visual, STEM-
based, online, download,
experimental, videos, and free
to users.
Earth and space science, hands-
on, answer science questions,
online, visual, videos, and free
to users.
Translation of science and health
programs, online, and free to users.
Classroom-ready and
curriculumtargeted digital
resources, videos, interactive,
audio, Pre-K to Grade 12,
science, lesson plan, online,
and free to users.
Science video clips, online,
and free to multiple users.
Game-based learning,
researchbased, online,
engaging activities,
technology enhanced
learning, and free to users.
The Importance of Effectively Implementing Technology to Improve Instruction
The importance of effectively implementing technology to improve classroom
instruction among school districts cannot be ignored. Hsu (2016) asserted that the
implementation of technology integration to improve classroom instruction is important
because it is an approach that can be used to reform teachers’ instructional practices. Woo
(2015) concurred, positing that the implementation of technology integration is
significant in helping teachers to facilitate instruction to enhance teaching and learning
outcomes. Affirming the quality of research in the importance of effectively
implementing technology to improve classroom instruction, researchers argued that when
technology is effectively implemented in the classroom, it enables teachers to engage
students in instructional activities and improve their teaching practices (Efe, 2015; Eristi
& Dindar, 2012; Murthy, Iyer, & Warrien, 2015; Pittman & Gaines, 2015; Roohi &
Ahmad, 2016). Erguvan (2014) declared that effectively implementing technology is
important to improve classroom instruction because it enables teachers to be effective in
facilitating classroom instruction using tools such as simulations, games, videos,
animations, and virtual laboratory. Erguvan’s study asserted that effective use of
technology through teachers’ facilitation of instruction made it possible for students to
engage in classroom activities to enhance teaching and learning outcomes.
Brenner and Brill (2016) affirmed the importance of effectively implementing
technology to improve classroom instruction by maintaining that effective use of
technology helped teachers to personalize instruction. In addition, Brenner and Brill
maintained that effectively implementing technology is important to meet the needs of
students with varied learning styles. ISTE (2016) standards discussed that personalizing
instruction to meet the needs of students with varied learning styles allows teachers to
work with students one-on-one in classroom activities. ISTE standards discussed that
teachers personalize learning activities to address students’ diverse learning styles,
working strategies, and abilities by using technology as an instructional tool and resource.
Gupta and Fisher (2012) argued that effectively implementing technology helped
teachers to strengthen classroom instruction. According to Gupta and Fisher’s study
district schools should use technology to empower teachers in strengthening classroom
instruction to enhance students’ learning outcomes. Teachers should take the adoption of
technology as part of their lesson planning to improve classroom instruction. Teachers
should not be afraid of open-source technologies and endeavor to use online education
portfolios to evaluate their students’ academic perfoormance. Gupta and Fisher
recommended that teachers should embrace the common core state standards to
strengthen their instructional practices to improve students’ learning outcomes.
Cubukcuoglu (2013) argued that effectively implementing technology to enhance
instruction enabled teachers to create a positive classroom climate to improve students’
learning outcomes. According to Cubukcuoglu’s study, effectively implementing
technology assisted teachers to introduce an interesting curriculum based on real-world
problems. Effectively implementing technology to improve classroom instruction assisted
teachers’ instructional practices to provide scaffolds and technological tools to enhance
students’ learning outcomes. Teachers, who implement technology effectively, create
more opportunities for feedback, reflection, and revisions to enhance students’ learning
outcomes.
Lee, Waxman, Wu, Michko, and Lin (2013) posited that effectively implementing
technology is important to impove classroom instruction because it assisted teachers in
their teaching. It is also an important factor for raising academic achievement levels in all
content areas, including science. Lee et al.’s study emphasized that strong gains in
academic achievement occurs with effective technology integration to improve classroom
instruction when teachers provide real-time support and encouragement to underserved
students in the classroom setting. Lee et al. contended that technology access policies
should aim to instruct students on one-to-one computer access as an instructional tool.
Lee et al. further argued that curriculum and instruction plans should enable students to
use technology to create content as well as learn the material to raise academic growth
and achievement. The effective use of technology to improve classroom instruction has
been recognized to be major components of teaching and learning by researchers.
According to ISTE (2016) standards, effectively implementing technology to
improve classroom instruction enhanced teachers’ instructional practices to do the
following:
•Technology integration in classroom instruction enabled teachers to advance
student learning, innovation, creativity to lesson activities in the classroom
setting and virtual environments (p. 3).
•Technology integration in classroom instructional practices enabled teachers
to promote and support students’ inventive thinking in the classroom setting
(p. 3).
•Technology integration in classroom instruction allowed teachers to engage
students in exploring real-world problems and solving authentic problems
using technology tools available for learning in the classroom setting (p. 3).
•Technology integration in classroom instruction enabled teachers to encourage
collaboration among students, and clarify students’ conceptual understanding
of content materials to improve learning outcomes in schools (p. 3).
•Technology integration in classroom instruction enabled teachers to use
technology to maximize content learning and mastery of skills in all content
areas, specifically science in districts across the United States (p. 2).
•Technology integration in classroom instructional practices assisted teachers
to encourage students to set their learning goals using technology to improve
academic achievement in various schools across the United States (p. 2).
•Technology integration in classroom instructional practices enabled teachers
to provide students with teacher-made tests, formative assessments,
summative assessments aligned with content materials, and used resulting data
to inform students’ achievement in district schools (p. 3).
The application of technology integration to improve classroom instruction
enables teachers to be effective in facilitating lesson activities rich in problem solving and
high order thinking skills. Higher order thinking skills involve teachers’ use of
technology to engage students in exploring real-world issues and solving authentic
problems as well as teachers’ use of technology in classroom instruction to promote and
support inventions and innovative thinking (ISTE, 2016).
In a research study by Al-rsa’i (2012), the researcher argued that technology
integration to improve classroom instruction enabled science teachers to be effective in
transforming their approach to lesson activities and teaching practices in the classroom to
improve student performance. Al-rsai’s study indicated the need for teachers’ use of
technology to engage students in exploring real-world issues, resolving authentic
problems, cognitive skills, logical thinking skills, reflective thinking skills, metacognitive
thinking skills, and creative thinking skills to enhance students’ learning outcomes
(McKnight & Ramnarine-Rieks, 2014; Tath & Ayas, 2012). Al-rsai’s study noted that
effectively implementing technology to improve classroom instruction enabled teachers
to promote students’ construction of knowledge, invention, decisions, explanations,
performances, support for innovation thinking, and lower order thinking skills such as
content discriminations, simple application and analysis, and cognitive strategies.
Researchers asserted that effectively implementing technology to improve
classroom instruction is important in comparing face-to-face and Internet based
instruction from the teachers’ perspectives. These researchers found that implementing
technology effectively enables teachers to be more successful in facilitating classroom
instruction (Adams, et al 2012; Alayyar, Fisser, & Voogt, 2012; Broussard, Hebert,
Welch, & VanMetre, 2014; Cakiroglu, Akkan, & Guven, 2012; Hagerman, Keller, &
Spicer, 2013; Lin, Chang, Tsai, & Kao, 2015). The importance of effectively
implementing technology to improve classroom instruction helped teachers’ facilitation
of instruction through video streaming that created a clearer picture for students’
understanding of concepts in all subject areas including science (Adams et al., 2012).
Alayyar, Fisser, and Voogt (2012) posited that effectively implementing
technology to improve classroom instruction is important because it helped teacher
instructional practices through electronic games that use iPads and tablets to engage
students in classroom activities in any subject areas. Effectively implementing technology
to improve classroom instruction helped teacher instructional practices through social
media by using Facebook or Twitter to engage students in classroom interactive
activities, according to Alayyar et al. Using Facebook or Twitter in the classroom helps
teachers to transform classroom instruction from traditional teaching tools to an
interactive technology tools through social media.
Cakiroglu, Akkan, and Guven (2012) found that effectively implementing
technology to improve classroom instruction is important because it helped teacher
instructional practices through blogs by assisting students to post their class work online
and podcasts as a learning tool for students to review class lesson. Teachers who
effectively integrated technology to improve classroom instruction provide an online
materials to enhance students’ learning. Effectively implementing technology to improve
classroom instruction is best achieved when teachers create classroom podcasts to
improve students’ learning. In support of this notion in the importance of implementing
technology to improve classroom instruction, Oliver, Osa, and Walker (2012) found that
effectively implementing technology to improve classroom instruction is important
because it helps teacher instructional practices through video conferencing that allows
students to travel globally from their classroom. Oliver et al. noted that implementing
technology effectively to improve classroom instruction assists students to use mobile
devices in collaborative group work. Teachers who integrate technology effectively to
improve classroom instruction facilitate group work activities using mobile devices to
collaborate with one another in the classroom setting.
According to Broussard, Hebert, Welch, and VanMetre (2014), integrating
technology effectively to improve classroom instruction is important because it
influenced students to purchase a personal computer to enhance their learning inside and
outside of the classroom. Effectively integrating technology to improve classroom
instruction is important for students to use their own personal computer to help teachers
differentiate instruction. Teachers were cognizant how they teach and how the students
demonstrated what they learned. Integrating technology effectively to improve classroom
instruction is important because it helps teachers to individualize students’ instruction
through the use of adaptive technology.
Gebre, Saroyan, and Bracewell (2014) posited that effectively implementing
technology to improve classroom instruction is important because it enhanced classroom
instruction more than the traditional method of teaching. Incantalupo, Treagust, and Koul
(2014) concurred, maintaining that effectively implementing technology to improve
classroom instruction is important because it helped teachers to enhance students’
knowledge. The importance of effectively implementing technology to improve
classroom instruction is important because it helps teachers to increase students’
knowledge of content through simulations and virtual manipulations, global learning,
efficient assessment, active classroom participation, and more opportunities for classroom
instructional feedback.
Whetstone, Clark, and Flake (2014) asserted that effectively implementing
technology to improve classroom instruction helps teachers to facilitate classroom
instruction to enhance students’ academic gain. Effectively implementing technology to
improve classroom instruction enables teachers to promote students’ high levels of
interactivity and engagement through classroom activities. Esterhuizen (2012) concurred
with the idea and contended that implementing technology effectively to improve
classroom instruction is important because teachers can support students’ computer
literacy to enhance learning. Discovering the students’ perceived computer literacy would
strengthen the value of effectively implementing technology to improve classroom
instruction as well as useful for educators to resolve the gap in student achievement in
various district schools in the United States.
Technology Integration and School Policy Making
Hew and Tan (2016) argued that despite technology integration’s vital role in
simplifying teaching and learning to make academic gain in schools, stakeholders and
policy makers continually use technology to foster learning communities across the
United States. It is believed that technology integration in school policy making
principles would encourage students’ cognitive skills and resolution skills in schools.
According to Hew and Tan, stakeholders, administrators, and teachers believed that
effectively integrating technology in the school educational environment would enhance
pedagogical instruction. Researchers supported this notion asserting that technology
integration and school policy supports the curriculum by using technological tools such as
simulations, games, videos, animations, and virtual laboratory to improve students’
academic outcomes (Insera & Short, 2012-2013; Lim, Zhao, Tondeur, Chai, & Tsai,
2013; Lin, Chang, Tsai, & Kao, 2015; Moller, Haas, & Vakilzadian, 2013; Mundy,
Kupczynski, & Kee, 2012; Whetstone et al., 2014; Yang & Leung, 2015).
Yu and Prince (2016) posited that effectively integrating technology in schools’
policy making principles would improve a shared vision of how technology can support
teaching and learning. Effectively integrating technology in policy making principles in
schools is dependent on the administration of successful policy development by the
stakeholders and the school leadership team (Yu & Prince, 2016)). It is imperative for
stakeholders charged with school policy making to use assessment and evaluation
techniques to inform decision making in school environment. The assessment and
evaluation techniques would ensure continuous improvement in teaching and learning
outcomes in schools.
Barriers to Effectively Implementing Technology in Schools
Banas and Polly (2016) contended that ensuring teachers and students experience
success using technology, district schools should endeavor to eliminate barriers impeding
the effective implementation of technology use. In addition, Ruggierro and Mong (2015)
asserted that it is imperative for educators to eliminate barriers impeding implementation
of technology integration in classroom instruction so that schools can make sufficient
students’ academic gain.
In support of this notion, researchers affirmed that barriers impeding teachers’
technology integration in the classroom includes teacher attitudes towards the use of
computers, lack of teacher confidence to technology use, teacher resistance to change,
lack of time devoted to technology instruction, poor funding for technology, and lack of
computer skills, and technical difficulties or problems confronting teachers’ use of
technology in the classroom (Banas & Polly, 2016; Gonczi, Maeng, Bell, & Whitworth,
2016; Hechter & Vermette, 2013; Karaoglan, Fatma, Yilmaz, Ozturk, Sezer, &
Karademir, 2015; Kopcha, 2012; Laferriere et al., 2013; Pittman & Gaines, 2015).
Carver (2016) posited that it is imperative to address these barriers impeding the
implementation of technology integration in teacher instructional practices to achieve the
benefits of technology use to improve teaching and learning in K-12 schools. Hsu (2016)
concurred, arguing that the elimination of barriers to technology use enhances
studentcentered learning. Hsu maintained that when teachers are unable to identify and
eliminate these barriers to effective technology integration, they are not competent
enough to implement technology successfully into the curriculum.
Technology Tools Used in Science Education
Below are the details of educational technology tools that are available to teachers
to use and improve classroom instruction in science. Some of these educational
technology tools are currently being used by science teachers at the project study site as
shown in table 2.
Science Channel—YouTube. According to YouTube's description of Science
Channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/sciencechannel), the site provides an effective
pedagogical practice used by science teachers in the classroom setting to improve
student-centered learning, engagement, performance, task accomplishment, and
achievement levels through science video clips. Science teachers used the technology tool
via video clips for lesson in biology, earth and space science, physical science, physics,
chemistry, anatomy and physiology. It is free to teachers and students. The Science
Channel is for students in all science subjects and grades P-12 (YouTube, 2017).
Science Links. According to Science Links (http://www.scilinks.org), the site is
used by science teachers through the National Science Teacher Association (NSTA) as an
organization that provides science activities and interactives to enhance teaching and
learning. Science teachers incorporated the technology tool into their lesson to enhance
students’ engagement and knowledge during classroom activities. Science teachers and
students have free access. The Science Links is for students in all science subjects and
grades 6-12 (NSTA, 2015).
Khan Academy. According to Khan Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org),
the site provides science tutorial and activities for science teachers and teachers from
other content areas to enhance their lesson objectives with students in the classroom
setting. Khan Academy is an organization that provides free access to the technology tool
for teachers and students. Khan Academy is for students in all science subjects and grades
6-12 (Khan Academy, 2017).
Best of Science—YouTube. According to YouTube's description of Best of
Science (www.youtube.com/user/BestofScience), the site provides the best of science
video clips for science teachers to access and improve their classroom instruction.
Science teachers integrated the technology tool to enhance students’ learning. Access to
the technology tool is free to teachers and students. Best of Science is for students in all
science subjects and grades P-12 (YouTube, 2017).
The Physics Classroom. According to the Physics Classroom
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com), the site provides physics tutorial, interactives, and
Internet modules for science teachers to use and enhance their classroom instruction.
Science teachers incorporated the technology tool into their lesson and class activities to
enhance students’ learning. Teachers and students have free access to the technology tool.
The Physics Classroom is for students in all science subjects and grades 9-12 (Physics
Classroom, 2017).
Brain POP. According to Brain POP (https://www.brainpop.com), the site
provides animated science interactives for students. Science teachers incorporated the
technology tool into their lesson activities to enhance teaching and learning. Access to the
technology tool is free to teachers and students. Brain POP is for students in all science
subjects and grades P-12 (Brain POP, 2017).
C. Stephen Murray Science. According to C. Stephen Murray Science
(http://www.cstephenmurray.com/science/index.htm), the site provides solutions to
physics, chemistry, and biology for science teachers to incorporate into their classroom
lesson activities with students. Science teachers used the technology tool to enhance
students’ learning in science. Access to the technology tool is free to teachers and
students. C. Stephen Murray Science is for students in all science subjects and grades 9-
12 (C. Murray Science, 2017).
Science Net Links. According to Science Net Links (http://sciencenetlinks.com),
the site is used by science teachers to find science lessons and tools for K-12 students.
Teachers used the technology tool to enhance classroom instructional activities for
students’ learning. Teachers and students have free access to the technology tool. Science
Net Links is for students in all science subjects and grades K-12 (Science Links, 2017).
AAAS Project 2061 Science Assessment. According to AAAS Project 2061
Assessment (http://assessment.aaas.org), use of the program enabled science teachers to
create and take tests with students. Science teachers used the technology tool to improve
students’ mastery skills in science. The technology tool is for science teachers’ use to
promote students’ learning. AAAS Project 2061 Science Assessment is for students in all
science subjects and grades 6-12 (Project 2061, 2017).
Annenberg Learner. According to Annenberg Learner
(http://www.learner.org/interactives), the site provides science interactives and other
content areas. Science teachers used the technology tool for the integration of lesson
activities during classroom instruction. Science teachers used the technology tool to
enhance students’ learning. Access to the technology tool is free to teachers and students.
Annenberg Learner is for students in all science subjects and grades 6-12 (Annenberg
Learner, 2017).
Biology4Kids. According to Biology4Kids (http://www.biology4kids.com), the
site provides interactives in biology topics such as cell structure, cell function, scientific
studies, plants, vertebrates, and invertebrates for science teachers to incorporate into their
classroom lesson activities to enhance students’ learning (p. 3). The technology tool is
free to teachers and students. Biology4Kids is for students in all science subjects and
grades 9-12 (Biology4Kids, 2017).
Cells Alive. According to Cells Alive (http://www.cellsalive.com), use of the
program provides science simulations and interactives for science teachers to incorporate
into their classroom lesson activities to enhance teaching and learning. Access to the
technology tool is free for teachers and students. Cells Alive is for students in all science
subjects and grades 6-12 (Cells Alive, 2017).
Biology Corner. According to Biology Corner (http://www.biologycorner.com),
the site provides science tutorials, worksheets, hands-on science labs, lessons, and teacher
resources for science teachers to incorporate into their classroom activities with students
to enhance teaching and learning. Access is free for teachers and students. Biology
Corner is for students in all science subjects and grades 9-12 (Biology Corner, 2017).
Biology Alive. According to Biology Alive
(http://biologyalive.com/life/index.html), the site provides tutorial, worksheets, and
teacher resources in biology, advance placement biology, microbiology, genetics, and
anatomy and physiology for science teachers to incorporate into their classroom
instruction to enhance students’ centered learning, engagement, performance, task
accomplishment, and achievement. The technology tool provides free access to teachers
and students. Biology Alive is for students in all science subjects and grades 9-12
(Biology Alive, 2017).
Table 2
Key Features of Other Educational Technology Integration Tools
Science Channel, YouTube
(https://www.youtube.com/user/sciencechannel)
Science Links (https://www.scilinks.org)
Khan Academy(https://www.khanacademy.org)
Best of Science, YouTube
(www.youtube.com/user/BestofScience)
The Physics Classroom
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com)
Brain POP (https://www. brainpop.com)
C. Stephen Murray Science
(http://www.cstephenmurray.com/science/index.
htm)
Science Net Links (http://sciencenetlinks.com)
AAAS Project 2061 (http://assessment.aaas.org)
Annenberg Learner
(http://www.learner.org/interactive)
Biology4Kids (http://www.biology4kids.com)
Cells Alive (http://www.cellsalive.com)
Biology Corner (http://www.biologycorner.com)
Biology Alive
(http://biologyalive.com/life/index.html)
Science video clips and free to users.
Science activities and interactives. Free to users.
Science tutorials, activities, and free to users.
Science video clips and free to users.
Science tutorials, interactives, and Internet
modules. Free to users.
Animated science interactives, and free to users.
Solutions to physics, chemistry, and biology.
Free to users.
Name of technology
Features
Science net links and solutions to K-12 students. Free
to users.
Create and take test.
Science and other content field interactives.
Free to users.
Interactives in biology such as cell structure, cell
function, scientific studies, plants, vertebrates, and
invertebrates. Free to users.
Science simulations and interactives.
Science tutorials, worksheet, hands-on, science
labs, lessons, and teacher resources.
Biology tutorial, worksheet, teacher resources in
biology, advance placement (AP) biology,
microbiology, genetics, anatomy and physiology.
Summary of Literature Review
The existing literature clearly revealed the current state of implementation and
barriers to effective technology integration in classrooms including science classrooms
across the United States. The literature review presented the factors necessary for
supporting teachers’ use of technology and barriers impeding its use in classroom
instructional practices. The literature portrayed the factors that are relevant for addressing
the problem of teachers’ implementation and barriers to effective technology integration
in classroom instructional practices. The literature laid emphasis on how the effective
implementation of technology integration in classroom instructional practices could be a
medium to facilitate instruction to improve student-centered learning, engagement,
performance, task accomplishment, and achievement levels. Ultimately, the literature
focused on classroom instructional practices to support teachers’ use of technology and
barriers impeding technology use in school districts across the United States. As noted by
Hew and Tan (2016); Hsu (2016); Ritzhaupt, Huggins-Manley, Dawson, Agacli-Dogan,
and Dogan, 2017; Yu and Prince (2016) it is imperative for educators to recognize the
critical factors in understanding the challenges and successes of effectively implementing
technology in classroom instructional practices. The saturation of the literature has been
achieved through repeated themes, concepts, and ideas from researchers who explored the
technology integration and barriers impeding technology use into the curriculum to
enhance students’ outcomes.
Implications
Koski and Vries (2015) posited that efficient teachers implement technology to
personalize learning for each student. However, research studies asserted that many
educators did not know how to effectively implement technology into the curriculum
(Ayhan, Muge, & Sukru, 2015; Hacieminoglu, 2014; Hsu, 2016; Swanson, 2014; Weston
and Bain, 2015). Since the United States Department of Education adopted the
implementation of ISTE standards into the curriculum for teachers, administrators, and
students, many educators failed to incorporate technology in their instructional practices
(U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Downes and Bishop (2012) argued that since the students in secondary education
has more need to acquire 21st-century technology than other groups, it is imperative that
secondary education teachers understand how to effectively implement technology
integration. In order to meet the needs of students in technology literacy in the
21stcentury, Gunn and Hollingsworth (2013) argued that teachers must understand how to
effectively implement and integrate technology into the curriculum.
The implications from this study may assist in the transformation process from
face-to-face learning to blended learning via online learning. This project study may
provide insight on how teachers should improve the effective implementation of
technology integration into the curriculum. Recommendations may include the
professional learning coordinators to revisit the appropriate methods of training necessary
to improve teachers’ effective implementation of technology integration into the
curriculum to enhance students’ learning outcomes.
Summary
Teachers are arguably the most important variable in delivering effective
technology instruction in science classrooms. Research studies on the effective
implementation to technology integration into the curriculum presented teachers as the
major factor in achieving successful use of technology in classroom instruction.
Technology integration provides students the opportunity to investigate and find solutions
to real-world problems. Effective technology integration provides students the avenue to
interact with people of diverse cultures, develop collaborative skills with others, and
become active in the global economy. Section I examines the role of technology
integration in education, new methods and ideas in classroom technology use, elimination
of barriers to technology integration into the curriculum, and the technological tools
available for effective technology implementation into the curriculum to enhance
students’ learning outcomes.
Section 2 provides details for the methodology framework that includes research
design and approach, participants, data collection, and data analysis.
Section 2: The Methodology
Research Design and Approach
Introduction
This project study addressed the specific problem of how high school teachers in a
southeastern school district integrated technology in their classroom teaching to improve
students’ learning outcomes in science. Research designs are procedures used during data
collection and data analysis (Creswell, 2012). In this methodology section, I provide the
rationale for the research design and approach used to explain the local problem. The
research questions for this study addressed how high school science teachers
implemented technology in their STEM classes and their technology, pedagogy, and
STEM content knowledge at the southeastern school district under study.
To address the research questions, I used a qualitative research method and a case
study research design (Merriam, 2009). A case study is a bounded system used to study a
common phenomenon within a specific context (Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). A
bounded system helps me to understand the boundaries of the case and the complexity of
participants’ behavior patterns (Stake, 1983, p. 283). A phenomenon helps me to observe
the occurrence of the event, such as technology use. A context helps me to understand
how teachers in a science class (context) in one southeastern school district (context)
experienced the phenomenon. These two examples of context are based on the research
objectives and frames my study. My reason for choosing a case study design was that I
sought to examine how teachers integrated technology in their classroom teaching using
the TPACK framework. In this case study, data collection included document review
(Appendix B) and open-ended interviews (Appendix C). The data collection methods
helped in answering the research questions through the responses provided by
participants during the interviews regarding effectively implementing technology
integration in their classroom teaching of the STEM curriculum. Open-ended interviews
and document review of teachers’ lesson plans were the two forms of data chosen for my
study. The two research questions aligned with the interviews and document review
(lesson plans) because these two data collection tools are generally used in qualitative
bounded case study research (Merriam, 2009) and both involve collecting data
specifically related to the research questions and the study problem.
In the following subsections, I describe the local setting and the ethical standards
associated with participant access and protection. A detailed description of the data
collection and data analysis procedures is also included. Answers to the research
questions were developed through data analysis and were supported by responses from
participant interviews. A general description of the procedures that I used to maintain the
quality of research is provided. I discuss data collection procedures for the documents and
interviews. I then discuss how data were analyzed using typological analysis. I conclude
by discussing the data analysis results, including the project deliverable.
Qualitative Research Design and Approach
According to Yin (2009), the purpose of case study research is to show real-life
experiences indepth (p. 4). Qualitative research is used to address why and how questions
concerning a phenomenon; thus, qualitative research was optimal for studying how
teachers integrated technology into their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning
outcomes in science.
A phenomenology approach was proposed and rejected for this study because
phenomenology focuses on the experiences of individuals as they lived them (Merriam,
2009). My study was about teachers’ effective implementation of technology integration
rather than their experiences related to social processes and cultures. Merriam (2009)
asserted that a key characteristic of phenomenology is that it is person centered rather
than being concerned with social processes and cultures. The phenomenology approach
was not appropriate for this study because the objective of this approach is to understand
how people construct the meaning of a specific phenomenon.
Ethnography was considered and rejected for this study because the aim of
ethnographic study is to investigate a focus culture by studying its members (Merriam,
2009). My study was about teachers’ technology implementation and their technology
knowledge, rather than a specific culture or members of that culture. Further, the
ethnographic approach requires a large amount of the researcher’s time. Merriam (2009)
contended that an important characteristic of the ethnographic approach is that it focuses
on everyday behaviors of members of a culture, which was not part of my study. The
ethnographic approach was not appropriate for this study because my intent was not to
identify cultural norms, beliefs, social structures, and other cultural patterns.
Grounded theory design was also considered and rejected for this study because it
is used when a researcher intends to develop a broad explanation or build a substantive
theory about a phenomenon of interest (Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) posited that an
essential characteristic of a grounded theory design is that it is used to generate a theory
involving the identification of a core category (p. 31). Grounded theory design was not
appropriate for this study because it addresses processes or change over time. The goal of
this study was not to develop a theory of technology implementation, but to explore how
teachers implemented technology in high school STEM classes and to explore teachers’
technology, pedagogy, and STEM content knowledge.
The historical approach was considered and rejected for this study because the aim
of this design is to analyze events that occurred in a current or isolated past (Merriam,
2009). Merriam (2009) stated that a significant characteristic of the historical approach is
that it uses first-person accounts of experience (p. 32). A historical approach was not
appropriate for this study because such an approach focuses on the philosophy of
hermeneutics (study of written text). In further argument, Merriam stated that the
historical approach uses biographical, psychological, and linguistic approaches, which did
not support this study.
Qualitative case study was selected for this study because this approach is used to
research a unit of study (Merriam, 2009). A qualitative case study researcher searches for
meaning and understanding in an investigation that produces richly descriptive data.
Because the behaviors of participants and the setting of a case study are not manipulated
as in experimental research, a case study presents a true and accurate account of the
experiences of an individual or group of people (Creswell, 2012; Johnson & Christensen,
2004; Merriam, 2009, 2011; Yin, 2009).
Participants
A total of 12 teachers from a pool of 18 teachers in the science department at the
project study site were purposefully selected to participate in the study based on
individual attributes (Merriam, 2009). Science teachers who were eligible to participate
and met the following criteria were the selected participants for the study. They needed to
be (a) performing teaching duties on a full-time or part-time basis, (b) certified science
teachers eligible to work for the southeastern school district, (c) integrating technology
into their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in science, and (d)
science teachers using educational technology to teach students in the classroom for at
least 1 year.
A sample of 12 participants was selected from the population of 18 teachers in the
science department. A small sample is appropriate for a qualitative case study because the
case is explored indepth (Creswell, 2012; Johnson & Christensen, 2004; Yin, 2009). The
smaller sample size of 12 participants was used to maximize the breadth and depth of the
data gathered from each participant in the study.
A purposeful sampling frame was used for this study because the cases, the
participants, were knowledgeable about the phenomenon (Yin, 2009). Patton (2015)
referred to such cases as information-rich because they can produce in-depth
understanding of a specific phenomenon. This inquiry fit my study because only science
teachers who had integrated technology in STEM classes had the requisite knowledge and
were invited to participate.
Access to Participants
Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) posited that for participant interviews to occur, a
researcher must obtain entry to the study site. I obtained entry to the project study site by
submitting an application to the district’s research office seeking permission to conduct a
research study. After obtaining permission from the district’s research office, I scheduled
a meeting with the high school principal to explain the details of the project study and
seek permission to conduct the study at the school site. Upon receiving the principal’s
approval, I requested that the school principal introduce me to the administrators and
science department chairperson. Additionally, I requested that the science department
chairperson introduce me to the science teachers who served as participants for the study.
A meeting to explain the purpose of my project study to the school administrators,
science department chairperson, and the teachers at the school site was scheduled. During
the meeting, I requested that the science department chairperson help me by providing the
science teachers’ e-mail addresses. All 18 science teachers from the study site received a
letter of invitation that introduced and described the justification for the research study
and offered them the opportunity to volunteer to participate in the study. I explained the
details of the study and answered any questions or concerns from the participants. The
times for the interviews were scheduled at the school site. I thanked the participants for
fulfilling their role and for supporting my study.
Researcher-Participant Relationship
One of the actions that I used to create a collaborative relationship with
participants was clearly communicating the purpose of the study. At the science
department meeting with the participants, I shared the purpose for the research study;
described the data collection methods, including review of teachers’ lesson plans and
interviews; stated how long the interviews would last; and provided my contact
information. Qualitative experts have recommended clearly sharing such information to
inform participants of their obligations in a study (Creswell, 2012; Hatch, 2002; Patton,
2002; Yin, 2009). I informed all participants of my expectations and discussed
obligations throughout the study process. I showed participants in this study utmost
respect, with special consideration for the time that they invested in the study effort.
Hatch (2002) asserted that participants were asked to exercise trust in sharing the intimate
details of their technology integration. In support of this notion, Merriam (2009) posited
that because participants are in control of the depth of information that they provide
during interviews, establishing good researcher-participant relationships is necessary to
ensure that participants understand the purpose of the study in simple terms.
Ethical Protection of Participants
I was obligated to conduct ethical research to protect the rights of the participants
and Walden University. Yin (2009) posited that this obligation is achieved in part by
gaining informed consent, avoiding deception, protecting the rights and privacy of
participants, and protecting participants from harm. Permission was obtained from the
district’s research director and the school principal to conduct the study. After receiving
approval from the school principal to conduct the study at the school site, I requested that
the principal introduce me to the administrators and the science department chairperson.
After my introduction to the science department chairperson, I requested that the science
department chairperson introduce me to the science teachers who might serve as
participants in the study. All 18 science teachers from the study site received a letter of
invitation that introduced and described the justification for the research study and
offered an opportunity to volunteer as a study participant. At this meeting, I shared the
purpose of the research study; described the data collection methods, including
interviews; stated the duration of the research study; and provided my contact
information. I explained the importance of the study and the value of participants’
contributions in supporting positive social change (Creswell, 2012). At the conclusion of
this meeting, I requested attendees’ telephone numbers and e-mail addresses so that I
could contact the science teachers by telephone and send informed consent forms to all
who volunteered to participate in the study. The science teachers who volunteered as
participants reviewed, signed, and returned the informed consent forms to me through
email.
I contacted the participants via telephone calls and e-mails to acknowledge receipt
of their consent forms after they signed and returned them to me. All informed consent
forms associated with the study were received by me through e-mail before data
collection began. Participants were not mandated to participate and could withdraw from
the study at any time.
Each participant was identified using a letter of the alphabet (i.e., Participants A,
B, C, and so forth). I used these participant codes to organize and store the participant
data. I protected the participants’ identities by indicating the participant code on the
corner of each participant’s file to ensure privacy protection and confidentiality. The
participants’ identities were not included in the results.
As described earlier, all participants received a letter of invitation informing them
of the time for their interview. In my letter, I encouraged participants to seek clarification
on all matters related to the study throughout the research process. My contact
information was provided to all participants so that they could contact me with any
questions or concerns (Hatch, 2002). All data were confidential, and no personal data
were collected. Research records will be kept in a password-protected database for 5
years upon completion of this study, and only I will have access to the records. All files
will be destroyed after 5 years, when I will shred all documents and delete associated
electronic files from all drives and computers.
Collection of the Data
The sources of data collection for this case study included document review and
open-ended interviews (Merriam, 2009). Hatch (2002) asserted that document review and
interviews are among the primary methods of collecting and analyzing data in qualitative
research. The two data sources were chosen for this qualitative case study because they
aligned with the conceptual framework, the problem, and the research questions.
Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) through
Walden University to conduct this research. After obtaining IRB approval (Approval No.
03-29-18-0325036) and the consent letter of cooperation, I presented the approval letter
to the southeastern school district director. I informed the school principal that data
collection might be completed in 3 to 5 weeks and would not disrupt students’ learning.
After gaining approval from the research study site and securing participants’ e-mail
addresses, I sent an invitation letter via e-mail to the participants selected for the study.
All of the participants received a letter of invitation that introduced the research
study, described its justification, and offered an opportunity to volunteer to participate in
the study. I explained the importance of the study and the value of participants’
contributions in supporting positive social change. I sent informed consent forms to all of
the teachers who volunteered to participate in the study. The teacher participants who
volunteered for the study reviewed, signed, and returned the informed consent forms to
me. I contacted the participants via telephone calls and e-mails to acknowledge receipt of
their consent forms after they signed and returned them to me. All informed consent
forms associated with the study were received by me through e-mail before data
collection began.
Participants were contacted via telephone and e-mail to set up a time for the
interview. I began conducting the interviews as soon as the schedule, venue, and times
were confirmed with the participants in the study. The interviews were conducted after
school hours. All teacher participants in the study requested not to be audio recorded
during the interviews. Each of the participants in the study declined the use of audio
recorder to record their interviews; therefore, I took written notes on all participants’
responses or statements. The interview data collected for the study, including signed
consent forms and teachers’ lesson plans obtained from the participants, will be kept
confidential in a secure cabinet for a 5-year period.
Documents
The first set of data collected in this project study consisted of teachers’ weekly
lesson plans, which I reviewed as one of two sources of data. I scheduled a time to meet
with each participating teacher and requested that each teacher submit two weekly lesson
plans at least 2 weeks before the scheduled interview. I explained to each participant that
I was looking for items in the weekly lesson plans that documented how teachers
integrated technologies into their classroom teaching and learning in the STEM
curriculum.
I developed a document review checklist (see Appendix B) to assist in the analysis
of teachers’ lesson plans. The checklist was based on the three components of TPACK
model and included a space for notes. I created the document review checklist using the
recommendations of Yin (2009). The document review checklist helped me determine
how participants used technology in their classroom teaching.
Interviews
I conducted open-ended and face-to-face interviews with teachers to identify how
they effectively implemented technology integration in their classroom teaching in STEM
curriculum and their technology, pedagogy, and STEM content knowledge. Open-ended
questions and face-to-face interviews allowed the STEM teachers to express their
experiences during the interviews.
Merriam (2009) posited that an interview was needed to understand past events
that cannot be replicated. An interview protocol related to the TPACK framework to
answer the research questions was developed before the interview process. According to
Doody and Noonan (2013), a semistructured interview is a qualitative method of inquiry
with participants that combined a predetermined set of open questions during the
interview process. The semistructured interview prompted discussion with the
participants and provided an opportunity for me to explore particular themes or further
responses in the study. Hatch (2002) asserted that semistructured interviews enables the
researcher to “create and ask additional questions” of the participants to gain depth and
richness of the data.
During the interviews, each of the participants in the study declined the use of
audio recorder to record their interviews; therefore, I took written notes on all
participants’ responses or statements. After writing down each of the participants’
interviews, I used member checking for the participants to check the findings for
accuracy of their data. The member checking was done for the participants to correct any
type of miscommunications during the interviews, address transcription errors, additions,
and/or deletions (Hagans, Dobrow, & Chafe, 2009). All the 12 teacher participants
checked the interview findings for accuracy of their data and returned the interview
transcript to me without correction. All the participants replied that they were satisfied
with my written interview statements as accurate information.
The interviews were scheduled during the week from Monday to Friday after
school hours to avoid interruption of students’ learning at the study site. Upon the school
principal’s approval to conduct the study at the school site, the interview sessions were
held at the school conference room. A sign was posted outside the designated conference
room stating that an interview was in progress and do not disturb. The interviews were
conducted for a period of 5 days at the project study site where the participants worked.
On the first day of the interviews, three participants were interviewed. On the second day
of the interviews, two participants were interviewed. On the third day of the interviews,
three participants were interviewed. On the fourth day of the interviews, two participants
were interviewed. On the fifth day of the interviews, two participants were interviewed. A
formal interview with each participant lasted between 45 minutes and 60 minutes. The
participants in the study were interviewed once.
During the interviews, I respectfully greeted the participants and addressed them
with regards. I avoided using demeaning words or attitudes to address the participants in
the study (Creswell, 2012). I avoided biased assumptions and awkward use of language
that implied bias due to gender, sexual orientation, racial or ethnic group, religion
affiliation, age or disability (Creswell, 2012). I avoided awkward use of language and
made sure that I chose my words carefully while addressing the participants. I did not
imply personal opinion when asking interview questions to eliminate bias (Merriam,
2009). I reiterated to the participants that the interviews are voluntary and they can
decline to participate for the interview at any time. While the participants answered
questions based on the interview prompts, I inserted probing and follow-up questions as
necessary. The participants were informed that their written responses or statements taken
during the interview were kept confidential. I thanked each participant for participating in
the interview process prior to their exit.
Data Analysis
In this qualitative bounded case study, I used Hatch’s (2002) typological analysis
model to analyze the collected study data. I used typological analysis to analyze teachers’
technology knowledge, content, and pedagogy. A typological analysis is the most
appropriate method because it is a “classification system in which predetermined
categories” are used to answer the research questions (Hatch, 2002). The purpose of this
bounded qualitative case study was to examine how teachers integrated technology in
their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in science. Technology
knowledge, pedagogy knowledge, and content knowledge from TPACK framework
served as the three typologies or categories to sort and code data. The documents (lesson
plans) provided by the participants in the study was the first data source examined for
patterns and relationships with the typologies. The interview data is the second data
source examined for patterns and relationships with the typologies. These two data
sources (documents and interviews) were examined for examples that support the
emerging patterns and examples that contradict or invalidate the patterns identified. The
relationships among the emerging patterns were identified and generalizations were
made. The raw data were examined for the information which supported and contradicted
the generalization that was made. Therefore, typological analysis served as the one
method of data analysis used for this study.
Typological Analysis
This qualitative bounded case study used Hatch’s (2002) model to illustrate the
typologies in analyzing data. Hatch (2002) posited that typologies are predetermined
categories or codes used to answer the research questions. The categories or codes are
identified before data were analyzed. Technology knowledge, content knowledge, and
pedagogy knowledge from TPACK framework (Lee & Kim, 2014) served as the
predetermined codes for the typological analysis of the data collected in this study.
Technology knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogy knowledge are approaches
that are core elements of the TPACK framework and critical for teachers to effectively
implement technology integration in their classroom teaching in STEM curriculum.
The teachers’ technology knowledge, content, and pedagogy were examined using
Hatch’s (2002) model to analyze data as follows:
1. I identified data that aligned or related to each typology.
2. I read the data entries according to each typology and recorded the main ideas
that come up as data was analyzed.
3. I searched for patterns and relationships among the main ideas.
4. I reread the raw data coding entries according to the patterns and relationships
identified.
5. I searched the raw documents data and interviews data for excerpts supported
or refuted the patterns and relationships identified.
6. I wrote generalizations that represented the patterns and relationships that was
found in the data (Hatch, 2002, p. 153).
I used the typological analysis steps to read the documents data and interviews
data and identified links between the data and the typologies. Then, I reread the data
according to the typologies and wrote the main ideas in the data. Then, the main ideas
entries were analyzed for relationships to the typologies. I identified patterns after the
main ideas were supported and contradicted. Then, I wrote the generalizations based on
the patterns and relationships that were found in the raw data.
Document Analysis
Documents data (lesson plans) collected from the teacher participants were
analyzed to identify any related typologies. The teacher participants provided documents
(lesson plans) to examine how they integrated technology in their classroom teaching to
improve students’ learning outcomes in STEM curriculum. I collected 24 weekly lesson
plans (Appendix B) from the 12 STEM teachers. I used Hatch’s typology (2002) analysis
to determine teachers’ technology knowledge, content, and pedagogy from the documents
(lesson plans). I read and highlighted the documents data entries using different colors
according to each typology. After reading the documents data the first time, I carefully
read the documents data three times; one time per typology. I ensured that the documents
data were highlighted with a specific color that matched each typology. Then, I read
entries by typology and recorded the main ideas for each typology that emerged as
documents data is analyzed (See Table 3).
Table 3
Typological Analysis Step 3: Key Entries Recording Main Ideas for the Typologies
(Technology Knowledge, Content Knowledge, and Pedagogy Knowledge) and Summary
Statement for the Main Ideas in Document Data
Main ideas for the typologies Summary statement for the typologies
Technology knowledge
Laptop computer usage
Desktop computer usage
Manual projector usage
Laptop computer carts use
Internet
Downloading video clips
Use of Google platform
Use of YouTube video clips
Online formative assessment use
Online summative assessment use
Online instructional
differentiation
Posting on social networks
Content knowledge
Used blended learning
Used web-based lessons to teach
content vocabulary
Used web-quest resources
Used web-game resources
Used web-based simulations
Used web-based animations
Pedagogy knowledge
Used web-based lessons to teach
content vocabulary
Technology knowledge
Participants used laptop computers for instruction.
Participants used desktop computers for instruction.
Participants used outdated manual projectors for instruction.
Participants used laptop computer carts for instruction.
Participants integrated the Internet for science instruction.
Participants integrated video clips for science instruction.
Participants integrated Google site for science instruction.
Participants integrated YouTube video clips for science instruction.
Participants integrated online formative assessment in science instruction.
Participants integrated online summative assessment in science instruction.
Participants integrated online instructional differentiation in science.
Participants integrated social networks such as Edmondo to post assignments in
science instruction.
Content knowledge
Participants used blended learning as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-based lessons as strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-quest resources as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used the web-game resources as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-based simulations as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-based animations as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Pedagogy knowledge
Participants used blended learning as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-based lessons as strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-quest resources as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used the web-game resources as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-based simulations as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-based animations as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Next, I searched for patterns and relationships among the main ideas identified in
the documents data. I did not see nonexamples in the documents data. Then, using the
main ideas, I examined the documents data for patterns, relationships, and themes within
the typologies. I reread my coding entries within the documents data according to the
patterns and relationships that was identified as a requirement for typological analysis
step 3. Next, I searched the raw documents data for samples that supported or refuted the
patterns and relationships identified. Next, I recorded the entries that aligned with
different elements in the patterns and where these patterns are located in the documents
data. Then, I coded the data entries within the documents data according to patterns
identified. Table 4 contains the typologies, patterns identified and the coding for
document data.
Table 4
Typological Analysis Step 5: Coding Data Entries According To Patterns Identified in the
Document Data
Typologies Patterns identified Coding
Technology
knowledge
Content
knowledge
Pedagogy
knowledge
Participants used laptop computers for instruction.
Participants used desktop computers for instruction.
Participants used manual projectors for instruction.
Participants used laptop computer carts for instruction.
Participants integrated the Internet for science instruction.
Participants integrated video clips for science instruction.
Participants integrated Google site for science instruction.
Participants integrated YouTube video clips for science instruction.
Participants integrated online formative assessment in science
instruction.
Participants integrated online summative assessment in science
instruction.
Participants integrated online instructional differentiation in
science.
Participants integrated social networks such as Edmondo to post
assignments in science instruction.
Participants used blended learning as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-based lessons as strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-quest resources as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used the web-game resources as a strategy to teach
content vocabulary.
Participants used web-based simulations as a strategy to teach
content vocabulary.
Participants used web-based animations as a strategy to teach
content vocabulary.
Technology use
Technology
integration
Used web-based
lessons to teach
content vocabulary
Next, I decided if the patterns identified are supported by the documents data.
Then, I wrote generalization sentences that represented the relationships between the
patterns that was found in the documents data which served as themes (See Table 5).
Table 5
Typological Analysis Step 6: Examination of Document Data for Relationships and
Patterns and One-Sentence Generalizations That Served as Temporary Themes
Themes emerged One-sentence generalization
Technology use
Technology integration
Web-based lessons to teach content
vocabulary
Technology use in STEM classes.
Technology integration in science
instruction.
Using web-based lessons to teach
content vocabulary in STEM classes.
Three temporary themes that emerged from the documents data: technology use in
STEM classes, technology integration in science instruction, and web-based lessons used
to teach content vocabulary in STEM classes. Two themes: technology use in STEM
classes and technology integration in science instruction were associated with Research
Question 1 (RQ1) and supported by documents data. All the three themes were associated
with Research Question 2 (RQ2) and supported by documents data. There was no
evidence of the discrepant cases in the documents data.
Interviews
Handwritten participants interview responses served as the interview data. The
interview transcripts were examined for patterns within the typologies. The teacher
participants provided interview responses to examine how they integrated technology in
their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in STEM curriculum. I
analyzed interview data (Appendix C) from 12 STEM teacher participants. I used Hatch’s
(2002) typology approach to analyze interview data (Appendix C) that aligned or related
to the three typologies (technology knowledge, content knowledge, and pedagogy
knowledge). I read the interview data entries according to each typology. I highlighted
each typology related to the interviews data with a different color. After reading the
interview data the first time, I carefully read the interviews data three times; one time per
typology. I ensured that the interviews data were highlighted with a specific color that
matched each typology. Then, I read entries by typology and recorded the main ideas for
each typology that come up as interviews data is analyzed (See Table 6).
Table 6
Typological Analysis Step 3: Key Entries Recording Main Ideas for the Typologies
(Technology Knowledge, Content Knowledge, and Pedagogy Knowledge) and Summary
Statement for the Main Ideas in Interview Data
Laptop computer usage
Desktop computer usage
Manual projector usage
Laptop computer carts use
Internet
Downloading video clips
Use of Google platform
Use of YouTube video clips
Online formative assessment use
Online summative assessment use
Online instructional differentiation
Posting on social networks
Poor Internet connection
Lack of access to district
recommended web-based science sites
Lack of inteactive Smart boards
Lack of access to digital projectors
Problem of obsolete and slow running
computers
Participants used laptop computers for instruction.
Main ideas for the typologies
Summary statement for the typologies
Technology knowledge Technology knowledge
Participants used desktop computers for
instruction.
Participants used outdated manual
projectors for instruction.
Participants used laptop computer carts
for instruction.
Participants integrated the Internet for
science instruction.
Participants integrated video clips for
science instruction.
Participants integrated Google site for
science instruction.
Participants integrated YouTube video
clips for science instruction.
Participants integrated online formative
assessment in science instruction.
Participants integrated online
summative assessment in science
instruction.
Participants integrated online
instructional differentiation in science.
Participants integrated social networks
such as Edmondo to post assignments
in science instruction.
Participants experienced poor Internet
connection as a barrier to technology
integration.
Participants lacked access to district
recommended web-based science sites
as a barrier to technology integration.
Participants lacked access to interactive
Smart boards as a barrier to technology
integration.
Participants lacked access to digital projectors as a barrier to technology
integration.
Participants has problem of obsolete and slow running computers as a
barrier to technology integration.
(table continues)
Used blended learning
Used web-based lessons to teach content vocabulary
Used web-quest resources
Used web-game resources
Used web-based simulations
Used web-based animations
Pedagogy knowledge
Used web-based lessons to teach content vocabulary
Participants used blended learning as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-based lessons as strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-quest resources as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Main ideas for the typologies
Summary statement for the typologies
Content knowledge Content knowledge
Participants used the web-game
resources as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-based
simulations as a strategy to teach
content vocabulary.
Participants used web-based animations
as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Pedagogy knowledge
Participants used blended learning as a strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-based lessons as strategy to teach content vocabulary.
Participants used web-quest resources as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used the web-game resources as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-based simulations as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-based animations as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Next, I searched for patterns and relationships among the main ideas identified in
the interviews data. I did not see nonexamples within the interviews data. Then, I
examined the interviews data for patterns, relationships, and temporary themes within the
typologies. I reread the raw data coding entries within the interviews data according to
the patterns and identified relationships. Next, I searched the raw interviews data for
samples that supported or refuted the patterns and relationships identified. Next, I
recorded the entries that aligned with different elements in the patterns and where these
patterns are located in the interviews data. Then, I coded the data entries within the
interviews data according to patterns identified. These are the themes (See Table 7).
Table 7
Typological Analysis Step 5: Coding Data Entries According to Patterns Identified in the
Interview Data
_______________________________________________________________________
Typologies Patterns identified Coding
Technology
knowledge
Content
knowledge
Pedagogy
knowledge
Participants used laptop computers for instruction.
Participants used desktop computers for instruction.
Participants used manual projectors for instruction.
Participants used laptop computer carts for instruction.
Participants integrated the Internet for science instruction.
Participants integrated video clips for science instruction.
Participants integrated Google site for science instruction.
Participants integrated YouTube video clips for science instruction.
Participants integrated online formative assessment in science
instruction.
Participants integrated online summative assessment in science
instruction.
Participants integrated online instructional differentiation in science.
Participants integrated social networks such as Edmondo to post
assignments in science instruction.
Participants experienced poor Internet connection as a barrier to
technology integration.
Participants lacked access to district recommended web-based science
sites as a barrier to technology integration.
Participants lacked access to interactive Smart boards as a barrier to
technology integration.
Participants lacked access to modern digital projectors as a barrier to
technology integration.
Participants has problem of obsolete and slow running computers as a
barrier to technology integration.
Participants used blended learning as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-based lessons as strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-quest resources as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used the web-game resources as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-based simulations as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Participants used web-based animations as a strategy to teach content
vocabulary.
Technology use
Technology integration
Barriers to
technologyintegration
Used web-based lessons to
teach content vocabulary
Next, I decided if the patterns identified are supported by the interviews data.
Then, I wrote a generalization sentence that represented the the patterns that were found
in the interviews data which served as temporary themes (See Table 8).
Table 8
Typological Analysis Step 6: Examine Interview Data for Relationships Among the
Patterns and Write One-Sentence Generalizations That Served as Themes
After
examination of the patterns in the interview data that supported a one sentence
generalization, I reviewed each highlighted section of the typologies to identify
temporary themes. Next, I transferred the temporary themes to a Microsoft Excel
summary sheet. Next, I added percentages of how frequent each theme occurred
according to the number of times the participants answered the question during the
interviews. Next, I added to the exisiting excel spread sheet the themes which occurred
more frequently in each typology (see Table 9 for frequency).
Table 9
Themes emerged One-sentence generalization
Technology use
Technology integration
Barriers to technology integration
Web-based lessons to teach content
vocabulary
Technology use in STEM classes.
Technology integration in science
instruction.
Barriers to technology integration in
science instruction.
Using web-based lessons to teach
content vocabulary in STEM classes.
Typological Analysis Step 6: Percentages of Frequency the Themes occurred in the
Interview Data
Typologies
Percentages of frequency of theme’s
occurrence
Technology knowledge
Pedagogy knowledge
Content knowledge
92%
84%
88%
Based on the two data sets, four themes that emerged: technology use in STEM
classes, technology integration in science instruction, barriers to technology integration in
science instruction, and using web-based lessons to teach content vocabulary in STEM
classes. Three themes: technology use in STEM classes, technology integration in science
instruction, and barriers to technology integration in science instruction were associated
with Research Question 1 (RQ1) and supported by the interview data. All four themes
were associated with Research Question 2 (RQ2) and supported by interview data. There
was no evidence of the discrepant cases in the interviews data. The themes were as
follows:
•Technology use in STEM classes
•Technology integration in science instruction
•Barriers to technology integration in science instruction
•Using web-based lessons to teach content vocabulary in STEM classes
Process by Which Data Were Gathered and Recorded
This qualitative case study examined STEM teachers’ technology integration in
their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes. Purposeful sampling
was used to identify the teacher participants based on the list of 18 teachers who would fit
the study attributes. I emailed invitation letters to these 18 potential STEM teacher
participants, and received responses from all 18 potential participants who agreed to
participate in my study. The next week, I explained the purpose of the research and
informed consent form to all the 18 potential participants. I gave a copy of the informed
consemt form to each potential teacher participant and allowed them 3 days to decide
whether they were willing to participate in the study.
Within 24 hours, I received e-mail messages from all 18 potential teacher
participants that they volunteered to participate in the study. Of the 18 volunteered
teachers, 12 participants were purposefully selected to participate in the study (Merriam,
2009). Each teacher participant reviewed, signed, and returned the informed consent
forms to me through e-mail before data collection began. The qualitative questions and
follow-up questions for the semistructured interview were based on the conceptual
framework and related literature.
The next day, the teacher participants selected a date, time, and venue of the
qualitative interview. The interviews were conducted in the conference room afterschool
hours when students have left the school building. The participants were informed that
their interviews would be audio-recorded, transcribed, and returned to them to check the
findings for accuracy of their data (member checking). The 12 teacher participants
declined to be audio-recorded during the interviews. Each interview with the teacher
participants lasted between 45 minutes and 60 minutes. The participants were interviewed
over a period of 5 days. The interview protocol, including follow-up questions, was used
to elicit indepth responses from the particiants. When participants had difficulty
responding, they were given follow-up questions such as: “Tell me more about…”
“Explain what happened as a result of your decision.” “What did you learn about…?”
Please give me an example of…? to continue with their responses. Follow-up questions
were used to facilitate the exploration of rich descriptive data from personal discussion of
their individual experiences. I wrote verbatim responses from the 12 teacher participants.
I used an assigned alphabet letter (A through L) to remove the identity of the
participants. I conducted transcript review and sent the interview transcript to each
teacher participant to verify the contents. All the 12 teacher participants verified and
returned the interview transcript without correction. All the participants replied that they
were satisfied with my written interview responses as accurate information.
Data Analysis Results
Introduction
During the analysis of data in this qualitative case study, I sorted the typological
categories or codes that emerged into four themes: technology use in STEM classes,
technology integration in science instruction, barriers to technology integration in science
instruction, and using web-based lessons to teach content vocabulary in STEM classes. I
identified these four themes that could be connected to technology knowledge, content,
and pedagogy typologies.
Themes Identified in Data
I sorted the four themes identified in the data according to their relationship to the
research question as well as data collection. After reviewing and coding the documents
and interview transcripts, I selected excerpts from the documents and transcripts to
support the emerging themes. The excerpts were verbatim responses obtained from the
STEM teacher participants. Details of the four themes identified in data are as follows:
Theme 1: Technology use in STEM classes. This theme emerged from both the
documents data (lesson plans) and interviews data. In the process of analyzing the
information provided by the participants during the interviews, I found that all 12 teacher
participants indicated they used technology in their STEM classes at the study site.
Participants used laptop computers, desktop computers, manual projectors, and laptop
mobile computer carts as technology instructional tools in their STEM classrooms at the
study site. Participant B stated,
I used computer as a technology tool to access e-mails and for taking classroom
attendance. I use technology for Internet connection and PowerPoint presentation
in my STEM classroom. I also use technology to access the free web-based
science sites that I know to improve students’ learning outcomes in STEM
classes.
Participant B’s response about technology use in STEM classes was in agreement with
the responses provided by other participants. Here is another example of a response
provided by Participant E:
I use manual projector and laptop computer for warm-up quizzes, lesson
introduction, and reviews of weekly lessons in STEM classes. I use technology
frequently for entering students’ grades and accessing the free web-based science
sites for students’ learning.
Participant B and Participant E explained that they used technology in STEM classes to
access the free web-based science sites which improved students’ learning.
Technology use in STEM classes is aligned to Research Question 1 (RQ1) and
Research Question 2 (RQ2) and supported by both the documents data (lesson plans) and
interviews data. This theme is supported by other research literature regarding how
STEM teachers use technology resources for effective classroom instruction which makes
21st-century learning possible (Sadaf, Newby, & Ertmer, 2016). Waters, Kenna, and
Bruce (2016) posited that the inclusion of technology use is an essential feature for
effective classroom instruction in district schools. According to Waters et al.’s study,
technology resources include computers, mobile devices, social media platforms and
networks, software applications, and the Internet which were used by STEM teachers in
this study.
Theme 2: Technology integration in science instruction. This theme emerged
from both the documents data (lesson plans) and interviews data. The information
provided by the participants in the study revealed that they integrated technology to
improve students’ learning in science instruction. Participants integrated technology tools
by downloading science video clips from the Internet and using the google.com for
science instruction to improve students’ learning outcomes. Participants integrated
technology by using YouTube site to access instructional videos for science instruction.
Participants integrated technology by providing online formative assessments and online
summative assessments for students’ learning in science instruction. Participants also
integrated technology by providing online instructional differentiation for students’
learning in science instruction. The online instructional differentiation enables the
students to work on different science assignments using different websites.
For example, Participant A responded as follows:
I integrated technology by downloading science video clips from different
websites and google.com for science instruction to improve students’ learning. I
integrated technology using the YouTube site to access instructional videos to
enhance science instruction. Youtube instructional video clips and materials from
other science websites helps my students as visual to improve their knowledge in
completing assignments in STEM classes.
Participant J reported,
I integrated technology by using online resources such as the USA Test Prep and
biology4kids.com in science instruction. I integrated the USA Test Prep and
Biology4Kids website as technology tools to access sample test materials for my
students to practice and improve their test-taking skills in STEM classes.
Participant H further reported,
I integrated technology using the USA Test Prep in my STEM classes because it
assists in simplifying teaching and learning. I integrated technology using the
USA Test Prep to give online formative assessment tests and online summative
assessment tests for my students in STEM classes. The USA Test Prep assessment
tests helps my students to learn science content and improve their test-taking
strategies in STEM classes. I also integrated technology using the USA Test Prep
as an online tool for instructional differentiation to improve students’ learning.
The USA Test Prep online helps my struggling students to work on their areas of
academic need or deficiency in science while other students who are proficient in
science content work on the assigned task in STEM classes.
Participants expressed agreement that technology integration positively enhanced
students’ learning outcomes in science instruction. Technology integration in science
instruction is aligned to Research Question 1 (RQ1) and Research Question 2 (RQ2) and
supported by both the documents data (lesson plans) and the interviews data. This theme
is supported by research literature regarding how science teachers depend on
implementing effective technology integration as a measure to reform their instructional
practices in the classroom setting (Farisi, 2016). Hsu (2016) asserted that implementing
effective technology integration has the potential to reform classroom instructional
practices in district schools. According to Hsu, integrating technology tools such as social
networks by downloading science video clips from the Internet, using the google.com,
and YouTube site to access instructional videos for science instruction, which was used
by science teachers in this study, helps to improve students’ learning outcomes.
Theme 3: Barriers to technology integration in science instruction. This theme
is present in the interviews data only. The most common barriers identified by the teacher
participants in science instruction were poor Internet connection, lack of access to district
recommended web-based science sites, lack of interactive Smart boards, lack of digital
projectors, and problem of obsolete and slow-running computers. For example,
Participant C reported,
Our technology integration in STEM classes is hindered by poor Internet access.
We have a computer laboratory in STEM classes but it is not monitored. We do
not have access to the district recommended web-based sites for technology
integration in science instruction. If teachers have access to district recommended
web-based science sites and some of the available free web-based science
resources, it will help our students to learn and understand science content much
better.
Participants were asked to provide information pertaining to the barriers that
hindered their technology integration. Participants B, D, F, K, L, and G further stated,
Sometimes, we have problem of obsolete and slow running computers which hinders our
technology integration in science instruction. We do not have any interactive Smart
boards and digital projectors for technology integration in science instruction. We need
professional development training on how to use the interactive Smart boards and digital
projectors in STEM classes.
Findings from the interviews data revealed that participants expressed agreement
that barriers to technology integration in science instruction hindered them from
effectively implementing technology in their STEM classes. Barriers to technology
integration in science instruction is aligned to Research Question 1 (RQ1) and Research
Question 2 (RQ2) and supported by the interviews data only. This theme is supported by
research. It is imperative for district schools to ensure science teachers and students
experience success using technology by eliminating barriers impeding the
implementation of technology in the classroom setting (Banas & Polly, 2016). Ruggierro
and Mong (2015) asserted that it is imperative for educators to eliminate barriers
impeding the implementation of technology integration in classroom instruction so that
schools can make sufficient students’ academic gain. According to the research literature,
poor Internet connection, lack of interactive Smart boards, lack of digital projectors, and
problems with obsolete and slow-running computers constituted the common barriers
impeding technology implementation in the classroom setting (Gonczi, Maeng, Bell, &
Whitworth, 2016; Karaoglan, Fatma, Yilmaz, Ozturk, Sezer, & Karademir, 2015; Pittman
& Gaines, 2015). Carver (2016) supported this assertion and posited that it is imperative
to address these barriers impeding the implementation of technology integration in
teacher instructional practices to achieve the benefits of technology use to improve
teaching and learning in K-12 schools. Participants poor Internet connection, lack of
access to district recommended web-based science sites, lack of interactive Smart boards,
lack of digital projectors, and obsolete and slow-running computers are the common
barriers at the study site.
Theme 4: Using web-based lessons to teach content vocabulary in STEM
classes. This theme is present in both the documents data (lesson plans) and interviews
data. Documents data (lesson plans) and interviews data (transcripts) revealed the teacher
participants identified blended learning, web-quest resources, web-game resources,
webbased simulations, and web-based animations as web-based lessons that helped them
to teach content vocabulary in STEM classes. One of the web-based lessons identified in
the interviews by the teacher participants was using the “Google” platform
(www.google.com) to teach content vocabulary in STEM classes. Participant B declared,
Web-based lessons made it easier to teach and learn content vocabulary in STEM
classes. I direct my students to access and connect to www.google.comon the
Internet and look up unfamiliar science content vocabulary words. My students
discovered that it is easier to look up and learn the science content vocabulary on
“Google” than using the dictionary.
The participants expressed agreement that incorporating web-based lessons was an
important aspect of teaching content vocabulary in STEM classes. The participants
agreed that utilizing the social media, web-based simulations, and web-based animations
to teach content vocabulary in STEM classes empowered the students to collaborate
effectively in classroom activities. Participant A stated,
I used web-based lessons by accessing cellsalive.com which helps my students to
multi-task in my STEM class. My students used the cellsalive.com to compare the
textbook materials to the web-based materials which made it simple to teach
content vocabulary in STEM classes. Cells Alive website made it easier for me to
teach content vocabulary. Cells Alive website made it easier for my students to
learn and understand science simulations as visual in connection to the textbook
materials in STEM classes. Students collaborate with each other using the science
vocabulary words they wrote on the index card and finding the meaning on
“Google” which made it easier to teach content vocabulary in STEM classes.
Participants C, H, and E further explained,
We used web-based animations by accessing brainpop.com to teach content
vocabulary in STEM classes. Brain POP website provides animated science
interactives for our students and helps them to learn content vocabulary in STEM
classes. We used Brain POP website as a web-based technology tool into our
lesson activities to enhance teaching content vocabulary in STEM classes.
Findings from the documents data (lesson plans) and interviews data revealed the
teacher participants were in agreement that using web-based lessons helped them to teach
content vocabulary in STEM classes. Using web-based lessons to teach content
vocabulary in STEM classes is aligned to Research Question 1 (RQ1) and Research
Question 2 (RQ2) and supported by both the documents data (lesson plans) and the
interviews data. This theme is supported by research that science teachers incorporate the
web-based instructional technology tools in their lessons to enhance student engagement
and knowledge during classroom activities (NSTA, 2015). According to the NSTA,
science teachers are expected to use educational technology such as the web-based
lessons to deliver effective pedagogical instruction in science classrooms. In further
support of this theme, NSTA (2015) posited that it is imperative for science teachers to
integrate technology effectively in science classroom and use web-based lessons
necessary to support students’ learning in schools.
Evidence of Quality
In this qualitative case study, after data were analyzed, I used triangulation, rich
descriptions of data, member checking, and peer debriefer to ascertain quality, credibility,
and reliability (Merriam, 2009). Merriam posited that triangulation uses many different
sources as evidence to improve quality of data in qualitative research. The triangulation
technique validates data through cross verification from analyzed data. According to
Merriam, triangulation of the data made it possible for the elimination of disparate
information without grounds for comparison to ascertain data integrity. Triangulation
method made it possible for me as the researcher to corroborate data collected from the
document review and the interviews. Therefore, I corroborated the findings from the
document review of teachers’ lesson plan with the interviews to strengthen data quality.
I used rich descriptions of data to ascertain quality, credibility, and reliability
(Merriam, 2009). Using rich description of details has been “a principal strategy” for
evidence of data quality (Creswell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). Rich descriptions of data
enables readers to see themselves in particular situation as participants thereby making
the findings more realistic to the reader (Creswell, 2012). According to Creswell, detailed
descriptions of the setting, participants, and interactions among the participants enables
readers to reason with the findings. Creswell maintained that detailed descriptions of the
setting enables readers to estimate how close their situations aligns with that of the
participants in comparison to their similar situations. Merriam (2009) posited that rich,
thick descriptions of data are necessary to contextualize the study so that readers can
determine whether their situations match the research context, and also whether the
findings can be transferred (p. 229).
As the researcher, I used member checks to ensure that there was no bias in data
collection as posited by other researchers (Davies, 2011; Glesne, 2011; Hancock &
Algozzine, 2011; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002; Yin, 2009). Member checking requires
me to return the findings to the participants for them to check the findings for accuracy of
their data, and then the participants returning the findings to me with their feedback.
Member checks helps to validate the information and/or data to ensure accuracy and
eliminate researcher bias. Yin (2009) posited that member check is a draft review to
corroborate evidence presented in qualitative case study (p. 182). I sent a two-page
summary of the findings via email to participants after data were analyzed. The
participants were instructed to check the findings for accuracy of their data. Participants
had 7 days to complete member checks and inform me by returning the transcripts back
with feedback whether the findings were an accurate representation of their data.
Participants completed member checks and informed me that there was no discrepancies
between my findings and their feedback. Therefore, I was not required to adjust my data
findings.
I asked one of my colleague who completed doctorate degree (PhD) to be a “peer
debriefer” (Merriam, 2009, p. 229). Peer debriefing helped to exclude extraneous
information from the data findings (Merriam, 2009). Peer debriefing was completed
within a period of 3 days (Merriam, 2009). My colleague reviewed the findings from the
data collection including cross referencing the themes and interpretation of findings
extracted from the data. My peer debriefer gave more insight in the data findings as well
as feedback on the data analysis of themes.
Summary of the Findings/Outcomes
This qualitative case study examined how teachers integrated technology in their
classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in science. Understanding
how teachers integrated technology were framed through the conceptual framework from
Lee and Kim (2014) as well as two guiding research questions, using a bounded
qualitative case study design (Merriam, 2009). This research study addressed the specific
problem of how high school teachers in a southeastern U.S. school district integrated
technology in their classroom teaching in STEM curriculum to improve students’
learning outcomes.
The results of this study indicated a need for PD training program addressing how
to implement technology in STEM classes with an emphasis on teaching technology,
pedagogy, as well as content knowledge in southeastern school district. The teacher
participants expressed concerns about barriers they experienced effectively implementing
technology in STEM classes during the interviews. The results of this study revealed that
these teachers were integrating technology to teach STEM content, however, they were
hindered by the common barriers to effectively implement technology integration into
their teaching in STEM classes. As a result of the common barriers hindering the
participants from integrating technology, a need exists for new PD training for teachers.
The PD training will serve as an intervention and remedy to resolve participants’
concerns in this bounded qualitative case study.
As part of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), federal government
regulations (Title IV A) require educators to have the skills needed to use technology in
classroom instruction. According to ESSA, implementing technology in classroom
instruction would enhance teaching and learning in all subject areas. ESSA recommended
that providing/creating a PD would enable the teachers to facilitate quality classroom
instruction to improve students’ optimal learning outcomes. In support of this notion,
Baser, Ozden, and Karaarsian (2017) asserted that one of the challenges to technology
integration is providing teachers with the knowledge to infuse technology into the
curriculum (p. 132). During the interviews, some of the teacher participants expressed
desire for PD opportunities to integrate technology in their classroom teaching. These
teacher participants indicated that more PD opportunities would assist them to acquire
additional knowledge and resolve barriers hindering their classroom technology use.
Based on the concerns expressed by the teacher participants in this study, there is a need
that exists for the creation of new PD training for teachers to effectively implement
technology in STEM curriculum. Section 3 provides additional details for the proposed
teacher PD and implementation strategies.
Conclusion
Documents review of teachers’ lesson plans and interviews were important for
creating an understanding of how teachers integrated technology in their classroom
teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes. The data analysis process included
examining data from both participant lesson plans and interviews. In this study, teachers
demonstrated competencies related to content knowledge, which is important for
effectively implementing technology into their teaching in STEM classes to improve
students’ learning outcomes. The data analysis process allowed a total of 4 themes to
emerge.
Section 3: The Project
The Project
Introduction
The project outcome of this study is a PD training on using the TPACK
instructional practices and available technology instructional tools in STEM classes. The
training will be a 3-day campus-based PD for STEM teachers who teach chemistry. In
this bounded qualitative case study, I explored how the teacher participants used TPACK
instructional practices and technology in STEM classes. Data on the 12 teacher
participants’ experiences and how they integrated technology were gathered through
document review of teachers’ lesson plans and semistructured interviews. The findings
indicated that STEM teachers were not implementing technology effectively in their
classroom teaching to improve student learning outcomes. Data findings indicated that
teacher participants would benefit from PD to provide them with more tools and
strategies to improve their instructional practices in STEM classes. In addition, the details
from the literature review assisted in guiding the strategies that I used in the project’s
development. I explain in detail how the instructional practices of STEM teachers could
be improved with the support of the PD training.
Appendix A details the project I designed, represented in a 3-day campus-based
PD training on using TPACK instructional practices and the available technology
instructional tools in STEM classes to teach chemistry lessons on various science
curricular content topics. This PD will serve as an intervention to address the participants’
weaknesses and/or deficiencies in implementing technology effectively in
STEM classes.
Purpose, Goals, Learning Outcomes, and Target Audience
Purpose of This Project
The purpose of this PD project is to train teachers on how to use TPACK
instructional practices and available computers with manual projectors as technology
instructional tools in STEM classes to plan and teach chemistry lessons on various
science curricular content topics. The intention of the PD is to provide specific training to
assist STEM teachers in their classrooms to enhance their use of technology and better
meet students’ learning outcomes. Chemistry will be used as the content for this project.
Goals of The PD
The five measurable goals of the PD are as follows:
1. Increase teachers’ understanding of using technology to teach chemistry.
2. Increase teachers’ frequency of using technology to teach chemistry.
3. Increase teachers’ effectiveness in using technology to teach chemistry.
4. Increase teachers’ collaboration to plan with peers using technology to teach
chemistry.
5. Increase teachers’ performance to differentiate instruction using technology to
teach chemistry.
Increasing teachers’ understanding of using technology to teach chemistry (Goal
1). According to the researchers, PD helps teachers increase technology use to enhance
student learning in the classroom setting (Ale et al., 2017; Al-Harthi et al., 2018; Scherer
et al., 2018). Increasing teachers’ frequency of using technology to teach chemistry is
important to support students’ learning and increase achievement levels (Goal 2).
Training teachers to implement technology integration is important in the classroom with
varying frequencies (Crowley, 2017; Koh et al., 2015; Murthy et al., 2015; Zelenak,
2015). Increasing teachers’ effectiveness in using technology to teach chemistry is
important to determine if they learned the skills (Goal 3). Teachers are effective using
technology after they learn the skills to deliver instruction, which is significant in the
classroom setting to improve teaching and learning outcomes (Al-Balushi & Al-Abdali,
2015; Al Musawi et al., 2015; Naizer et al., 2017; Valdmann et al., 2017). Increasing
teachers’ collaboration to plan with peers using technology to teach chemistry is needed
for instructional planning in the classroom setting to support students’ learning outcomes
(Goal 4). Team collaboration for instructional planning assists teachers in planning how
to use technology in the classroom setting to support students’ learning outcomes (Baser
et al., 2017; Burrell et al., 2015; Dorner & Kumar, 2016; Kempen & Steyn, 2017;
ShihHsung et al., 2015). Increasing teachers’ performance to differentiate instruction
using technology to teach chemistry is important for differentiating instruction to assist
teachers in supporting struggling students in the classroom setting (Goal 5). Instructional
differentiation assists teachers to deliver classroom instruction to students on varying
academic levels (Banas & Polly, 2016; Bozkurt & Ruthven, 2017; DePountis et al., 2015;
Lin et al., 2015; Sparapaqni & Calahan, 2015). Teachers’ attainment of these PD goals
will be measured using a Likert scale (see Appendix A). To achieve these PD goals, I
concluded that a 3-day campus-based PD training would provide adequate assistance to
the teacher participants to improve their technology integration and/or instructional
practices in STEM curriculum.
Learning Outcomes of The PD
STEM PD is designed to address one of the goals on each full day of the 3-day
campus-based PD sessions identified in this project. The learning outcomes of this project
are as follows:
Upon successful completion of PD Day 1, the teacher participants will
•Use the TPACK instructional practices in STEM classes to plan and teach a
chemistry lesson on periodic table of the elements (Group 1 through Group
18) and identify the number of electron charges in each group, excluding
transition metals (Group 3 through Group 12), as well as identify the number
of valence electrons in each element in the groups with available technology
instructional tools.
Upon successful completion of PD Day 2, the teacher participants will
•Use the available laptop computers, desktop computers, manual projectors,
and laptop mobile computer carts as technology instructional tools in STEM
classes to plan and teach a chemistry lesson on other periodic trends from the
periodic table to explain the relative properties of elements based on patterns
of atomic structure.
Upon successful completion of PD Day 3, the teacher participants will
•Use the available laptop computers, desktop computers, manual projectors,
and laptop mobile computer carts as technology instructional tools in STEM
classes to plan and teach a chemistry lesson on atomic structure from the
periodic table of the elements using electron cloud and carbon as the element
to identify the number of electrons in each energy level.
Target Audience for This Project
The target audience for this PD project is science teachers who have direct duties
and responsibilities for delivering content material to students in STEM classes at the
urban high school selected as the study site. Each of the teacher participants has over 6
years of experience teaching in secondary education. All the teacher participants hold a
Bachelor of Science degree.
Rationale
Project Content Rationale
The project was chosen because the literature review in Section 1 revealed that
science education is lagging behind other subject areas in technology integration. Science
teachers lack proper PD to increase the knowledge and skills necessary for effectively
implementing technology into their teaching in STEM classes.
Data analysis documented in Section 2 of this case study indicated that the
teachers were not using instructional technology effectively for several reasons: lack of
knowledge to teach STEM classes using the available instructional technology tools,
limited coordination of technology use, and limited knowledge on how to implement
technology integration into their classroom teaching in the STEM curriculum. Carver
(2016) identified several barriers encountered by teachers during technology use. Lack of
effective PD and limited access to technology were the barriers that hindered teachers
from using technology (Carver, 2016, p. 112). The literature identified other barriers as
obsolete and slow-running computers, hardware problems, and technology integration
skills that hindered teachers from using technology effectively (Broad, 2015, p. 17). The
teachers agreed that integrating technology into their classroom teaching was hindered by
the common barriers identified in the data analysis.
The project addresses the problem statement in various ways. The general
problem associated with technology integration impeded teachers’ delivery of effective
instruction in science classrooms. Teachers did not integrate technology effectively in
their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in science. Data
collection indicated that implementing technology effectively has a positive interaction
with classroom teaching in the STEM curriculum. Using a facilitator in designing PD
would be an effective way to educate teachers on how to effectively teach chemistry
lessons using technology as an instructional tool in STEM classes. The study problem is
addressed through 3-day PD campus-based sessions where teachers are divided into
collaborative groups to plan and teach chemistry lessons on the periodic table of the
elements with technology using TPACK instructional practices in STEM classes. This
project is expected to help the teacher participants to better implement technology into
their classroom teaching in the STEM curriculum.
Project Genre Rationale
The project genre was chosen based on the findings from the data collected during
the study. The literature review in Section 1 revealed that science education is lagging
behind other subject areas in technology integration. In this study, it was discovered that
STEM teachers did not receive appropriate PD to increase the knowledge and skills
necessary for implementing technology effectively into their classroom teaching in the
STEM curriculum. Findings revealed the need for an intervention through PD to address
how to integrate technology effectively in STEM classes. This PD has been designed to
train teachers on how to use TPACK instructional practices and available instructional
technology tools in STEM classes to plan and teach chemistry lessons on the periodic
table of the elements in their lesson plans.
I created a PD for teachers to improve the teacher participants’ use of TPACK
instructional practices and technology instructional tools to support students in the
classroom setting. Allowing the teacher participants time to gain knowledge on how to
incorporate technology into their classroom teaching during the PD may assist them in
meeting the content-specific needs of students in the STEM curriculum. Jen, Yeh, Hsu,
Wu, and Chen (2016) posited that PD designed with the TPACK model is effective in
exploring a standard-setting method using an evidence-based approach to cross-validate
teachers’ ranks of proficiency levels in classroom instruction. The PD allows the teacher
participants time to meet with their colleagues to share and gain additional knowledge on
their instructional practices using instructional technology web-based science resources
and other modern technologies available in the STEM curriculum.
Similarly, Harvey and Caro (2017) posited that PD designed with the TPACK
model is important in developing and assessing teachers’ classroom skills. Harvey and
Carol maintained that PD can be designed with the TPACK model as a metric for
measuring teachers’ skills for integrating technology into their classroom instruction. In
support of this notion, Al-Harthi, Campbell, and Karimi (2018) posited that the TPACK
model is an effective approach to validate teachers’ cloud-based learning designs in
virtual learning environments. The data analysis results indicated that a variety of modern
educational technology tools are available for implementing technology in STEM
instruction when teachers receive adequate PD. Similarly, Jongwon, Youngmin,
Youngshin, Jongseok, and Jin-su (2015) designed professional development using
application of the practical on-site cooperation model (POCOM) for improving science
teaching in secondary schools to assist teachers in meeting the content-specific needs of
students in the STEM curriculum. This PD provided training and information to support
the teacher participants with implementing technology effectively into their teaching in
STEM curriculum. Therefore, PD designed with the TPACK model is aligned with the
results of the data analysis in this study.
Review of the Literature
The review of the literature supported the PD for STEM teachers’ classroom
instructional practices and strategies to improve students’ learning outcomes. The specific
genre of this project was chosen based on the data gathered and recorded from the teacher
participants’ responses during the interviews. Based on the data coding and emerging
themes, it was evident that the teacher participants’ instructional practices were not
properly implemented in STEM classes to improve students’ learning outcomes. PD was
created for the teacher participants to develop the skills needed to address their
instructional practices and strategies to improve students’ learning outcomes in STEM
classes. This literature review addresses PD designed with the TPACK model and its
benefits on teachers’ instructional practices and strategies in their classroom teaching in
the STEM curriculum. Data collected from the interviews indicated that the teacher
participants experienced barriers in their classroom teaching, including lack of adequate
training and difficulty with available technology resources in STEM classes. PD was
designed with these barriers in mind to resolve concerns expressed by the teacher
participants during the study.
To demonstrate saturation of the topic, I gathered materials from Walden
University’s online database. The saturation of the literature review was reached after
researching peer-reviewed journals in education databases. I searched databases that
included Educational Research Complete, ERIC, SAGE Premier, ProQuest Central,
Science Direct, and Academic Search Complete. I also performed Boolean searches that
included, but were not limited to, the following terms: benefits of professional
development on TPACK instructional practices, benefits of professional development on
instructional technology use, and benefits of professional development on students’
learning.
Benefits of Professional Development on TPACK Instructional Practices
The teacher participants in the study expressed the desire for an intervention
offered through professional development to improve classroom instruction in their
teaching using the TPACK instructional practices. Although the teacher participants have
knowledge of technology, content, and pedagogy; professional development is necessary
because they were not implementing adequate instructional practices and strategies in
their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in STEM curriculum.
Literature indicated that teachers’ perspectives on technology use in the classroom have
influenced their instructional methods and practices in technology-enabled environments
(Crompton, Olszwski, & Bielefeidt, 2016). Yurtseven and Altun (2017) concurred and
asserted that the connection between efficient professional development programs,
enhancements of teaching skills, and students’ academic achievement were important in
determining the effectiveness of the professional development programs. Designing
effective professional development using the TPACK model could be the basis for
preparing the teachers’ knowledge in the field of pedagogy.
Professional development is designed to play an important role in addressing the
weaknesses expressed by the teacher participants during the interviews. The design of the
professional development activity can provide solutions on how to resolve the barriers
hindering the teacher participants in their classroom teaching. Bozkurt and Ruthven
(2017) asserted that teachers benefit from effective professional development programs
that are collaborative and supportive in nature to improve the quality of teaching and
learning in the classroom setting. Designing an effective professional development could
be an action that helps ensure the teacher participants are more productive and student
learning is improved.
Providing effective professional development for educators cannot be restricted to
science content alone. For example, Ale, Loh, and Chib (2017) asserted that professional
development must include training on how to use technology tools and devices to
enhance students’ learning in all subject areas. Owens (2015) concurred and posited that
designing an effective professional development program based on the participants’
instructional practices would increase their success and stimulate their pedagogy
experiences. In addition, Kempen and Steyn (2017) argued that effective professional
development motivates teachers in goal setting thereby providing them an opportunity to
reflect on their pedagogy experiences. Therefore, providing the teacher participants
effective professional development would assist them to be competent in their classroom
teaching and improve their pedagogical knowledge in the classroom setting.
Professional development benefits teachers using the TPACK instructional practices in
their classroom teaching because it served as an intervention to resolve the teacher
participants’ concernsparticipants’concerns on common barriers to properly facilitate
instruction in STEM classes. Jen et al. (2016) argued that professional development
served as an intervention for preparing teachers to improve their classroom teaching and
learning. In support of this notion, Karatas, Tunc, Yilmaz, and Karaci (2017) concurred,
positing that professional development served as the connection between the teachers’
knowledge and their classroom instructional practices to improve students’ learning.
Professional development is used as an intervention because it assesses the teacher
participants’ level of growth to properly improve their classroom teaching and students’
learning outcomes.
Similarly, Yeh, Lin, Hsu, Wu, and Hwang (2015) posited that professional
development was used to help teachers implement, describe, as well as document their
technology use and teaching skills. According to Yeh et al., professional development
helped teachers’ instructional practices in evaluating and implementing effective
classroom teaching. In this bounded qualitative study, professional development is used
to help teachers manage their instructional delivery methods in the classroom.
Researchers asserted that professional development benefits teachers in designing
instructional practices necessary to improve students’ learning outcomes in the classroom
setting (Al-Harthi, Campbell, & Karimi, 2018; Cengiz, 2015; Scherer, Tondeur, Siddiq,
& Baran, 2018; Yeh, Lin, Hsu, Wu, & Hwang, 2015; Yenmez & Ozpinar, 2017).
Professional development enables teachers to establish stability between technology,
content, and pedagogical knowledge in facilitating their instructional delivery in STEM
curriculum.
Affirming the quality of research in professional development, researchers
asserted that teachers should utilize professional development as a resource for improving
instructional practices and strategies in the classroom setting (Canbazoglu, Guzey, &
Yamak, 2016; Saltan, 2017; Scherer, Tondeur, & Siddiq, 2017; Suryawati & Linggasari,
2017; Urbina & Polly, 2017). These researchers also maintained that effective
professional development was instrumental in building teachers’ competency in their
classroom teaching. In support of this notion, Al-Harthi, Campbell, and Karimi (2018)
posited that effective professional development helped teachers to increase their
classroom targets of delivering successful instruction to improve teaching and learning
outcomes.
Benefits of Professional Development on Instructional Technology Use
Using a Professional development is an effective method for training teachers to
use technology for STEM instruction to enhance students’ optimal learning outcomes.
Professional development helps teachers learn about using instructional technology so
that they can facilitate students’ learning via online and electronic media including
faceto-face teaching to enhance instruction. For instance, Gonczi, Maeng, Bell, and
Whitworth (2016) asserted that professional development assisted teachers to use
technology as an instructional tool in planning their lessons for meaningful delivery of
instruction in the classroom. In support of this notion, researchers asserted that
professional development is a resource which educates teachers on how to infuse
instructional technology in their classroom teaching to improve students’ learning
outcomes (Edwards & Nuttall, 2015; Instefjord & Munthe, 2016; Kannan & Narayanan,
2015; Kriek & Coetzee, 2016; Riordain, Johnston, & Walshe, 2016). These researchers
did not focus on STEM curriculum, however, they focused on effective technology
integration in the classroom setting that can improve teaching and learning in any subject
areas. Professional development infused with instructional technology as an approach and
strategy can positively influence teachers to improve their classroom teaching. For
example, Riordain, Johnston, and Walshe (2016) posited that professional development
assisted district schools across United States in providing adequate training for their
teachers to transition from face-to-face instruction to online instructional technology
approach in the classroom setting. Professional development can help teachers provide
meaningful classroom instruction to their students irrespective of the barriers that may
confront them during the transition from face-to-face instruction to online instructional
technology approach.
Professional development can provide teachers the opportunity to learn new
approaches and more effectively incorporate technology in their teaching in STEM
classes. For example, Al-Balushi and Al-Abdal (2015) contended that professional
development is more effective when using a Moodle-based professional development
program to train science teachers. Al-Balushi and Al-Abdal maintained that professional
development enabled teachers to teach students with creativity and demonstrate the
effectiveness of the professional development they received through proper use of
instructional technology approach.
Benefits of Professional Development on Students’ Learning
Students’ learning is a learner focused education which shifts the instructional
focus from the teacher to the students in the classroom setting (Kriek & Coetzee, 2016).
According to Kriek and Coetzee, when teachers facilitate instruction in the classroom,
students’ interest in teaching and learning becomes the primary focus of instruction and
classroom activities. Professional development is an integral part of teaching and learning
that supports students’ learning. Professional development focuses on helping the teacher
participants develop the skills necessary to facilitate students’ learning in the classroom
setting. For example, Kriek and Coetzee (2016) posited that focusing on students’
learning as part of the professional development is instrumental in capturing teachers’
comprehension and knowledge to plan classroom activities geared towards successful
students’ learning outcomes. Edwards and Nuttall (2015) concurred, positing that
professional development helped to train teachers to focus on students’ learning through
effective instructional strategies that supported their pedagogical knowledge in the
classroom setting. Concerns expressed by the teacher participants during the interviews
placed students’ learning as the principal focus of classroom instruction which shifts
teaching and learning from the teacher to the student.
Researchers asserted that professional development can benefit students’ learning
as a primary focus for instructional practice which has been correlated to the teachers’
instructional delivery and approach in the classroom setting (Kempen & Steyn, 2017;
Overstreet, 2017; Phelps, Kelcey, Jones, & Liu, 2016; Trumper & Eldar, 2015;
Valdmann, Holbrook, & Rannikmae, 2017; Zelenak, 2015). Professional development
helps the teacher participants to plan classroom lessons that can benefit students’ learning
as an important factor for implementing meaningful instruction with technology in STEM
classes.
Professional development is an effective method for helping teachers to transform
their pedagogical practices necessary to improve students learning the content in STEM
classes. Kempen and Steyn (2017) posited that professional development assisted
teachers to understand the importance of putting students’ learning first as a strategy to
enhance teaching and learning outcomes. A comprehensive overview of well-designed
professional development is necessary to address the deficiencies of student learning in
the classroom as revealed by the teacher participants in the study. Professional
development serves as an intervention to address the teacher participants’ barriers
hindering them from planning lessons focused on student learning in STEM classes.
Overstreet (2017) posited that professional development is based on the teaching
strategies necessary to ensure teachers plan classroom seatwork focused on student
learning for adequate instructional practices. Phelps, Kelcey, Jones, and Liu (2016)
concurred and asserted that professional development was designed to accommodate all
standards governing the teachers’ facilitation of student learning for effective technology
use and outcomes. The purpose of this professional development project is to train
teachers on how to use the TPACK instructional practices in STEM classes. This training
will be presented using available computers and manual projectors as instructional
technology tools to plan and teach chemistry lessons. This professional development is
designed to address the teacher participants’ desire to improve their use of technology to
plan and teach chemistry lessons on various science curricular content topics. In the next
section, I present details for the project implementation, implementation timeline,
potential resources, existing supports, potential barriers and solutions, proposal for
implementation and timetable, roles and responsibilities, the type of evaluation,
justification for using this type of evaluation, the overall goals of the project that will be
utilized, and the overall evaluation goals.
Project Description
Implementation
The purpose of this project is to train teachers on how to use the TPACK
instructional practices and available computers with manual projectors as instructional
technology tools in STEM classes to plan and teach chemistry. The intented goals of the
professional development are to:
1. Increase teachers’ understanding of using technology to teach chemistry.
2. Increase teachers’ frequency of using technology to teach chemistry.
3. Increase teachers’ effectiveness of using technology to teach chemistry.
4. Increase teachers’ collaboration to plan with peers using technology to teach
chemistry.
5. Increase teachers’ performance to differentiate instruction using technology to
teach chemistry.
The project will cover 3-day campus-based professional development sessions
designed for the participants to use available laptop computers, desktop computers,
manual projectors, and laptop mobile computer carts as technology instructional tools to
plan and teach chemistry lessons in STEM classes. The professional development
implementation will cover these curriculum topic areas: (a) training on more effectively
using the TPACK instructional practices in STEM classes to plan and teach a chemistry
lesson on the periodic table of the elements (Group 1 through Group 18) and identify the
number of electron charges in each group excluding transition metals (Group 3 through
Group 12) as well as identify the number of valence electrons in each element in the
groups with available technology tools in their lesson plans, (b) training on more
effectively using the available laptop computers, desktop computers, manual projectors,
and laptop mobile computer carts as instructional technology tools in STEM classes to
plan and teach a chemistry lesson on other periodic trends from the periodic table to
explain the relative properties of elements based on patterns of atomic structure, (c)
training on more effectively using the available laptop computers, desktop computers,
manual projectors, and laptop mobile computer carts as instructional technology tools in
STEM classes to plan and teach a chemistry lesson on the atomic structure from the
periodic table of the elements using electron cloud and carbon as the element to identify
the number of electrons in each energy level.
Daily PD Topics. The first day of the professional development will offer the
teacher participants training on more effectively using the TPACK instructional practices
in STEM classes to plan and teach a chemistry lesson on the periodic table of the
elements (Group 1 through Group 18) and identify the number of electron charges in each
group excluding transition metals (Group 3 through Group 12) as well as identify the
number of valence electrons in each element in the groups with available technology
tools in their lesson plans. The professional development will offer an introduction to
using the available technology as instructional tools to teach STEM classes at the study
site. The teacher participants will be asked to design a chemistry lesson on the periodic
table of the elements using technology as an instructional tool in STEM classes. The
professional development will offer the participants an opportunity to collaborate and
identify how they could use technology to teach a chemistry lessons in STEM classes and
share their suggestions with each other in an open discussion forum.
The second professional development (PD) session will offer the teacher
participants training on more effectively using the available laptop computers, desktop
computers, manual projectors, and laptop mobile computer carts as instructional
technology tools in STEM classes to plan and teach a chemistry lesson on other periodic
trends from the periodic table to explain the relative properties of elements based on
patterns of atomic structure. The PD will allow the teacher participants opportunity to
improve their instructional practices and strategies in STEM lessons using the available
instructional technology tools at the study site.
The third professional development (PD) session will offer the teacher participants
training on more effectively using the available laptop computers, desktop computers,
manual projectors, and laptop mobile computer carts as instructional technology tools in
STEM classes to plan and teach a chemistry lesson on the atomic structure from the
periodic table of the elements using electron cloud and carbon as the element to identify
the number of electrons in each energy level. The teacher participants will work in
cooperative groups and each group will plan a chemistry lesson based on the atomic
structure from the periodic table of the elements. Each group of the teacher participants
will share their suggestions in an open discussion forum with other groups of participants.
Implementation Timeline
The PD training will be a 3-day campus-based professional development training
sessions. The 3-day training and/or workshop will be conducted at the study site. The
3day campus-based professional development sessions is designed to train teachers on
how to use the TPACK instructional practices and the available instructional technology
tools in STEM classes to plan and teach chemistry.
The 3-day campus-based professional development for this project study will
require a total of 21 hours of training sessions, from Monday to Wednesday, 9:00 AM to
4:00 PM. The professional development could be placed as on-going and can be
conducted anytime during each school year. As the facilitator for this project study, I am
available to provide the professional development as on-going process in attempt to
resolve the concerns expressed by the teacher participants during the interviews.
Potential Resources
The instructional resources needed to deliver the 3-day campus-based professional
development sessions are (a) a computer laboratory to accommodate the teachers and
other interested faculty for 3-day training sessions, (b) desktop computers, (c) laptop
computers, (d) laptop mobile computer carts, and (e) manual projectors. These
instructional technology tools are the available resources at the study site based on the
interviews data.
Existing Supports
The district of study uses electronic resources and platforms to communicate with
employees, stakeholders, parents, and students. Therefore, teachers at the project study
district utilize Moodle Google platform for sharing information with faculty and their
students regularly. Professional development campus-based sessions are provided via
Moodle Google platform and the associated evaluation forms are completed online in
Google docs.
The project study site has a strong instructional support system which includes a
STEM Instructional Facilitator that meets with the administrative team regularly. The
STEM Instructional Facilitator can provide feedback to the administrative team on the
progress of the professional development implementation. The STEM department chair
would provide support and coaching strategies to the teacher participants during the
professional development.
Potential Barriers and Solutions
Potential barriers for this project include the teacher participants’ failure to attend
the campus-based workshop. Potential barriers also include conflict in dates for the
professional development and/or workshop scheduling. Although the teacher participants
are benefiting from the professional development, they may not have the time to
participate in the 21 hours campus-based training sessions. The teacher participants’
failure to participate in the professional development may result in lack of knowledge to
improve their instructional practices in STEM curriculum.
A practical solution to this barrier is to offer the professional development in a
2hour session afterschool hours during the regular school days. Nevertheless, the
overwhelming response from the teacher participants who agreed to participate in this
study is proof that they would attend the campus-based professional development at the
scheduled time, date, and venue.
The second barrier is conflict in dates scheduling campus-based professional
development during the project study district’s assigned professional learning days. The
school principals are charged with implementing the district mandated professional
learning days. It is difficult to schedule this project on those district mandated
professional learning days.
A possible solution to this barrier is to offer professional development in a 4-hour
session during the district’s recommended professional learning days. As the facilitator, I
am available to provide the campus-based professional development on a 4-hour sessions
during the district recommended professional learning days and/or a 2-hour session
afterschool hours during any school year.
Proposal for Implementation and Timetable
Professional development for STEM teachers will be scheduled on the district
recommended professional learning days. The reason for selecting the district
professional learning days is because the STEM teachers will be formally released on
those days for the campus-based professional development. Scheduling the professional
development on the district professional learning days will eliminate any discrepancies
and/or issues arising from the STEM teachers for failure to attend the professional
development as scheduled.
Due to a high demand to improve instructional practices in STEM curriculum, the
proposed implementation and timetable for this professional development is scheduled
for the first semester of 2019-2020 School Year. In addition, this project could be an
ongoing professional development proposed for the following school year and any other
school year.
Timetable for the 3-day professional development campus-based sessions timings
will be from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM as the official district working hours. On each of the
3day campus-based professional development sessions, the training will last for seven
hours, so that by the end of the 3-day professional development sessions, the required 21
hours of professional development will be completed. Table 10 shows the proposed
timetable for the 3-day professional development sessions. Refer to Appendix A for the
hour-by-hour detail of the 3-day campus-based professional development. See Table 10
for the proposed professional development timetable.
Table 10
Proposed STEM Professional Development Timetable
PD sessions and time Topics to be covered in PD sessions
STEM Professional Development
DAY 1
9:00 AM – 4:00 PM
Participants will receive training on more effectively using the
TPACK instructional practices in STEM classes to plan and teach a
chemistry lesson on the Periodic Table of the Elements (Group 1
through Group 18) and identify the number of electron charges in
each group, excluding transition metals (group 3 through group 12)
as well as identify the number of valence electrons in each element
in the groups with the available instructional technology tools in
their lesson plans.
STEM Professional Development
DAY 2
9:00 AM – 4:00 PM
Participants will receive training on more effectively using the
available laptop computers, desktop computers, manual projectors,
and laptop mobile computer carts as instructional technology tools in
STEM classes to plan and teach a chemistry lesson on other periodic
trends from the Periodic Table of the Elements to explain the relative
properties of elements based on patterns of atomic structure.
STEM Professional Development
DAY 3
9:00 AM – 4:00 PM
Participants will receive training on more effectively using the
available laptop computers, desktop computers, manual projectors,
and laptop mobile computer carts as instructional technology tools in
STEM classes to plan and teach a chemistry lesson on the atomic
structure from the Periodic Table of the Elements using electron
cloud and carbon as the element to identify the number of electrons
in each energy level.
Roles and Responsibilities of Student and Others
Student
Students do not have any role in the 3-day campus-based professional
development training. The students would be responsible for participating in the
classroom activities that are facilitated by the teachers in STEM classes.
Principal
The school principal is responsible for scheduling dates for the professional
development at the project study site. The principal is also responsible for securing the
computer laboratory with Internet access for the professional development. In addition,
the principal ensures that the laptop computers, desktop computers, laptop mobile
computer carts, and manual projectors are available for the professional development.
Facilitator
My established role is to be the facilitator of the professional development. I will
generate the learning materials for the training. I am responsible for assisting the teacher
participants to learn how to plan and teach chemistry lessons using technology as
instructional tools including gaining access to the world-wide web to retrieve the
webbased science resources for the training. I will supervise the participants and monitor
submission of their completed tasks on the Moodle Google platform. As the facilitator of
the professional development, I am the lead teacher in guiding the teacher participants
during the 3-day campus-based professional development sessions including the use of
the available instructional technology resources in their teaching in STEM classes to
improve students’ learning outcomes.
Participants
The role of the participants is to engage and carry out the activities designed for
the 3-day campus-based professional development (PD). The participants will learn how
to plan and teach chemistry lessons using technology as instructional tools including
gaining access to the world-wide web and retrieve information from the web-based
science resources for the training. The participants will use the available instructional
technology tools and the Moodle Google platform to complete their assigned tasks for the
professional development training.
Project Evaluation
The evaluation for this project is used to measure the set goals and outcomes of
this study including the data sources. At the end of each campus-based PD session, an
evaluation form (Appendix A) will be provided to each STEM teacher participant. The
participants will evaluate and rate various components of the PD sessions using the
survey (Likert scale), questionnaire, and reflective journal.
Participants will complete a formative evaluation and a summative evaluation (see
Appendix A for evaluation form). In this project study, the STEM teachers are the
stakeholders. The formative evaluation is used to assess the stakeholders’ progress in
completion of the goals and the outcomes of those goals (Al-Balushi & Al-Abdali, 2015).
The formative and summative evaluation are discussed in the sections below.
Justification for Using This Evaluation Approach
This section justify the need for using the formative evaluation and summative
evaluation approaches. It is justified to use the formative evaluation in this study because
the participants will evaluate and rate various components of the on going PD sessions
using the reflection journal and questionnaire. The formative evaluation approach
assesses how the professional development goals are met.
It is justified to use the summative evaluation approach in this study because the
summative evaluation determines overall effectiveness, progress, and weakness of the PD
implementation at the end of the year. At the end of the campus-based PD sessions,
summative evaluation will be used to evaluate and rate various components of the overall
PD sessions using the survey (Likert scale).
Formative Evaluation
The formative assessment is the first method of evaluation plan. The participants
will evaluate and rate various components of the on-going PD sessions using the
reflection journal and questionnaire. The formative assessment assesses how the PD
implementation goals are met. Al-Balushi and Al-Abdali (2015) posited that the process
of project implementation is dependent on the formative evaluation as it assesses ongoing
progress of the professional development. Valdmann, Holbrook, and Rannikmae (2017)
concurred, arguing that formative evaluation provides a systematic way to assess and
validate professional development training thereby determining the effectiveness of a
design-based, continuous professional development for science teachers (p. 577). The
formative assessment is used to provide positive and negative feedback to the
stakeholders during the progress of project implementation.
The teacher participants will be asked to write a one-page reflection journal on the
success and weakness of the PD sessions. The reflection journals and questionnaire will
be used as formative evaluation (see Appendix A) to determine whether the PD goals are
met. The questionnaire (see Appendix A) assesses the on-going PD during the district
professional learning days to establish how the support structure will help the teacher
participants plan and teach chemistry lessons with the available technology instructional
tools (Goal 1 through Goal 3). The formative evaluation also examines how the support
structure will assist the teacher participants to meet the desired PD goals to:
1. Increase teachers’ understanding of using technology to teach chemistry.
2. Increase teachers’ frequency of using technology to teach chemistry.
3. Increase teachers’ effectiveness of using technology to teach chemistry.
4. Increase teachers’ collaboration to plan with peers using technology to teach
chemistry.
5. Increase teachers’ performance to differentiate instruction using technology to
teach chemistry.
During the on-going PD sessions, the study district coordinator will analyze the
results of the formative assessment and inform the school principal of the feedback and
outcomes of the PD. The school principal will disseminate data to all stakeholders to
determine whether the formative assessment for the PD implementation is successful.
Summative Evaluation
The summative assessment is the second method of evaluation plan. Summative
evaluation determines overall effectiveness,progress, and weakness of the PD project
implementation at the end of the year. At the end of the campus-based PD sessions, an
evaluation form (Appendix A) will be provided to each STEM teacher participant. The
participants will evaluate and rate various components of the overall PD sessions using
the survey (Likert scale). The STEM teacher participants will be asked to provide
feedback using a survey (Likert Scale) based on the teacher participants’ understanding,
frequency of technology integration, and effectiveness of the PD. Al-Balushi and
AlAbdali (2015) contended that summative evaluation helped the “program developers
and decision makers” with judgments about the program or training’s overall merit (p.
463). Al-Balushi and Al-Abdali’s (2015) study maintained that summative assessment
could measure overall outcomes, which may result in positive or negative feedback from
the stakeholders. At the end of the year, the STEM teacher participants will provide
feedback on how the PD assisted with creating a support structure that addressed the
goals of the
PD.
The study district coordinator will analyze the results of the summative
assessment and inform the school principal of the overall outcomes. The school principal
will disseminate final data to all stakeholders to determine whether the PD for the project
was successfully implemented. To understand the efficacy of PD on student learning
outcomes in STEM classes, summative assessment will be used to rate the overall
effectiveness of the project study. Overall, this PD project aims to strengthen the STEM
teachers’ integration of technology as a support structure in various subjects and content
areas at the urban school. The PD is intended to provide meaningful and specific training
to assist STEM teachers to enhance their use of technology and improve students’
optimal learning outcomes.
Overall Goals of This Project
The overall goals of the PD project is to maximize and/or increase the STEM
teachers’ classroom instructional practices and use the available instructional technology
tools in STEM classes to teach chemistry. The STEM teacher participants will be asked
to provide feedback using a survey (Likert Scale) based on their understanding of the
chemistry content and the PD goals (Appendix A).
The overall goals of the PD are to:
1. Increase teachers’ understanding of using technology to teach chemistry.
2. Increase teachers’ frequency of using technology to teach chemistry.
3. Increase teachers’ effectiveness of using technology to teach chemistry.
4. Increase teachers’ collaboration to plan with peers using technology to teach
chemistry.
5. Increase teachers’ performance to differentiate instruction using technology to
teach chemistry.
Overall Evaluation Goals of This Project
The overall evaluation goals of the project will be measured using the teacher
participants’ feedback from the survey (Likert scale) to evaluate the overall PD goals at
the end of the year (see Appendix A). The survey (Likert scale) will be used to evaluate
the effectiveness of the overall PD goals.
The overall evaluation goals of the project are to:
1. Evaluate the increase of teachers’ understanding of using technology to teach
chemistry.
2. Evaluate the increase of teachers’ frequency of using technology to teach
chemistry.
3. Evaluate the increae of teachers’ effectiveness of using technology to teach
chemistry.
4. Evaluate the increase of teachers’ collaboration to plan with peers using
technology to teach chemistry.
5. Evaluate the increase of teachers’ performance to differentiate instruction
using technology to teach chemistry.
Key Stakeholders
The administrators will use the outcomes of the PD to inform the teachers,
students, and the community. School administrators are key stakeholders because they
release the teacher participants to participate in the PD as well as grant permission to
conduct the study at the school site. Crowley (2017) argued that PD assisted teachers in
effective classroom instructional practices in district schools (p. 477). Teachers are key
stakeholders because they were actively involved in the PD. Cordingley (2015)
investigated contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development.
Cordingley’s (2015) study found that PD improved evidence-based instructional practices
among teachers in the classroom setting. Students are key stakeholders because they are
the reason teachers provide feedback on the progress of learning outcomes. Steeg and
Lambson (2015) argued that PD helped teachers to facilitate instruction that enhanced
students’ academic growth (p. 474). Young and MacPhail (2016) investigated
“cultivating relationships” with school placement stakeholders. Young and MacPhail’s
study contended that the “different configurations” of community membership allowed
cooperating teachers to contribute towards school placement collaboration. Therefore, the
community is a key stakeholder because the school cannot live apart from the
community. Effective community involvement and support to the district is pivotal for
the students’ learning outcomes. Based on the literature, community support helps to
shape the school culture and climate to enhance teaching and learning outcomes.
Project Implications Including Social Change
Local Community
The PD has the potential to influence all stakeholders in the local community. The
PD would have a major influence on the teachers because they would learn specific
instructional practices to address the local problem. By providing the campus-based PD,
it is expected that the teacher participants will use the training sessions as a support
structure and use the TPACK instructional practices with available instructional
technology tools in STEM classes. The success of this project study through a
campusbased PD with the teachers teaching STEM classes could lead to expanding this
study to other core content teachers at the local district. This PD may help to improve
instruction in STEM classes which is important to increase student performance and
achievement.
The PD may influence the local district by providing the teachers opportunity to
address the learning needs of all students in STEM classes. This project study
administered through a campus-based PD may contribute to positive social change by
providing teachers a better knowledge and understanding on how to use the TPACK
instructional practices with available instructional technology tools in STEM classes.
Larger Context
If the project evaluation indicates that the PD is effective in helping teachers raise
students’ performance and achievement, then the PD could be implemented
simultaneously in other districts across United States to support teachers’ instructional
practices in the STEM curriculum. Consequently, there is high expectation that positive
social change may occur with the STEM instruction among the teacher participants who
took part in the PD.
Conclusion
The results of this project study indicated a need for PD to train teachers to use the
TPACK instructional practices and strategies with available instructional technology
tools in STEM classes. PD was designed to provide meaningful and specific training to
assist STEM teachers to enhance their use of technology and better meet students’
learning outcomes. In addition, the PD requires teachers to plan and teach chemistry
lessons with technology using the available laptop computers, desktop computers, manual
projectors, and laptop mobile computer carts as technology instructional tools in STEM
classes. In this project study, formative and summative evaluation was important to test
the efficacy of the PD to determine the authenticity and/or credibility of the training for
the local district. The following section presents a discussion of reflections and
conclusions of the study including the project’s strengths and limitations,
recommendations for alternative approaches, and a personal reflection.
Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions
Reflections and Conclusions
Introduction
This PD project is intended to train teachers on how to use TPACK instructional
practices and the available instructional technology tools in STEM classes to plan and
teach chemistry. In this section, I discuss the strengths and limitations of my project,
including alternative approaches. I also present personal reflections on my growth as a
scholar and researcher and make recommendations for future research.
Project Strengths and Limitations
Strengths
This PD was designed as a support resource to help STEM teachers better
understand and use instructional technology tools in STEM classes to plan and teach
chemistry lessons on the periodic table of the elements. This project was informed by best
instructional practices and strategies that have worked successfully for improving the
content and pedagogical knowledge of teachers through effective PD (Hummell, 2017,
2018; Porter et al., 2017; Swanson, 2014; Thomas & Kavanaugh, 2018; Yildirim &
Sidekli, 2018).
The teacher participants’ training on how to plan and teach chemistry lessons
during the PD training is a project strength. The participants will receive training on
planning their lesson plans using the available instructional technology tools. Participants
will also receive training on how to access and integrate the web-based science resources
to improve their instructional best practices in their classroom teaching in the STEM
curriculum. Learning how to plan and teach chemistry lessons with technology is
intended to resolve the problem of technology integration among the teacher participants
in STEM classes. I designed this PD project to serve as an intervention for teachers to
help them accelerate students’ learning in STEM classes.
Limitations
A limiting factor in this project is the possibility of experiencing unforeseen
technical difficulties, including obsolete and slow-running computers, in using
technology to facilitate instruction in the classroom to enhance students’ learning
outcomes.
The limitation may be overcome when the district of study provide standby
technicians and maintenance crew to tackle the problem whenever it occurs during
classroom instructional time to avoid disruption of students’ learning.
Recommendations for Alternative Approaches
The problem of technology integration in teachers’ instructional practices is a
complex issue to explore. As such, there are several alternative approaches that could be
considered to address this problem differently based on the work of the study. I could
have used a mixed methods study to review the entire study site and/or local district
pertaining to technology integration. This alternative approach would have involved
surveying teachers and administrators to understand the factors that may affect students’
learning outcomes at the study site.
Another approach that could have been used would have involved changing my
sample size. For this study, I focused on teachers teaching STEM classes at the study
site. A larger sample size would allow me to interview teachers at different urban schools.
I used convenience sampling at one urban school for this study. A convenience sampling
size limited my findings to one location instead of providing me the opportunity to
expand my research findings to other urban schools at the district of study.
I could have interviewed the members of the administrative team at the study site
to understand their perspectives on how the problem of technology integration hinders
students’ learning outcomes. Finially, the curriculum facilitators could have been
included to improve technology integration methods in every subject area at the study
site.
Scholarship, Project Development, and Leadership and Change
Scholarship
A reflection on this project study helped me to realize the type of knowledge and
experience that I gained from my chosen topic. I developed skills as a researcher and
collaborated with colleagues on discussion posts as doctoral students in appreciation of
the online learning culture. As I reflect on my scholarly writing skills, I remember the
feedback that I received from my committee chairman, second committee member,
university research reviewer (URR), and other professors who taught me at Walden
University. My research skills improved because of the positive feedback that I received
from my committee chairman and second committee member, which assisted my research
revisions.
Pelger and Larsson (2018) investigated the advancement of scholarship on
teaching portfolios to improve teaching and learning outcomes. Pelger and Larsson’s
study found that the writing of reflective teaching portfolios has the potential to
contribute to an emerging academic community of practice characterized by a scholarly
approach to teaching and learning. Vithal (2018) concurred, positing that growing a
scholarship of teaching and learning institutionally has the potential to contribute to an
emerging academic community of practice. Based on the study conducted by Pelger and
Larsson, a teaching portfolio is a skill that I acquired that documented the evidence of my
teaching goals and philosophy as a teacher. As I conducted this study, I gained skills and
knowledge for research-question creation, data collection, data analysis, emerging theme
identification, data coding, and interpretation of findings and/or results through online
webinars and positive feedback from my professors. My project study helped me gain
knowledge and experience to plan a 3-day campus-based PD training as a solution to the
local problem.
Project Development
I designed the PD to meet the needs of the teacher participants in maximizing
students’ learning outcomes in the STEM curriculum. As the PD facilitator, I expect
positive results and should be able to provide evidence thereof. A major task in
developing the PD is gathering chemistry materials tailored to STEM teachers and using
available instructional technology tools at the study site. Knowles, Kelley, and Holland
(2018) contended that PD helps teachers to collect learning materials necessary to
improve their classroom instructional practices to enhance students’ learning outcomes.
Al-Balushi and Al-Abdali (2015) posited that using a Moodle-based PD program assisted
in training teachers to develop the knowledge needed to teach students to use creativity in
the classroom setting. Al-Balushi and Al-Abdali’s study focused on assessing teachers’
effectiveness in their classroom teaching practices, which helped in project development.
Green and Kent (2016) concurred, positing that effective project development may be
achieved through PD by developing science and mathematics teachers’ knowledge
through a science and technology initiative. Consequently, it is important to seek
feedback from the participants on how they used technology integration to support their
classroom teaching in various subject and content areas at the urban school. In addition, it
is important to seek feedback from the teachers on how the PD assisted in providing
meaningful and specific training to enhance their use of technology and meet students’
optimal learning outcomes.
Leadership and Change
My learning experience at Walden University taught me to be a leader and
motivate others to inspire change in the educational field. The planning of the PD enabled
me to develop leadership skills in facilitating and inspiring positive change among the
teacher participants to address the concerns they expressed during the interviews. Ott
(2018) posited that PD helped teachers to improve their classroom strategies through
leadership reform in the school setting. Sales, Moliner, and Francisco (2017) concurred,
stating that PD helped teachers to collaborate with one another to achieve students’
academic growth. Therefore, combining successful leadership and change through an
effective PD required the collaborative efforts of the teacher participants in this study.
Analysis of Self as Scholar, Practitioner, and Project Developer
Scholar
My experience as a doctoral student at Walden University has improved my
teaching performance and my use of instructional best practices in my own classoom
because I have acquired more knowledge and skills through educational research and
practice. My research experience enabled me to develop effective PD for teacher
participants through the research knowledge I gained from this study. My research
experience has given me the opportunity to write with confidence and clarity because I
have gained vast knowledge of scholarly writing.
As a scholar, I had the opportunity to use credible sources in my research study.
The use of credible sources for my study enhanced my scholarship due to the exposure
that I gained to the research literature. As a scholar, I found that exposure to educational
research in this study gave me new insight and improved my understanding of the
methodology aspect of research design.
Practitioner
As a practitioner, I have found that the knowledge and experience that I have
acquired from the research literature have improved my teaching practices with students
in the classroom setting. The ideas that I have acquired from my doctoral coursework as
well as my research experience have benefited teachers and students who have received
my classroom support. For example, I use research-based classroom activities to facilitate
instruction in my science classroom. I also help other teachers to use research-based
science resources to teach their students in their various classrooms. The experience that I
gained in this study exposed me to research knowledge that made me a better science
teacher practitioner.
Project Developer
Developing this project study enabled me to understand the components of
successful PD by facilitating the PD. By creating PD, I learned about better methods of
instructional delivery using technology to teach chemistry lessons in STEM classes. I
learned to improve students’ academic growth using the available instructional
technology tools in STEM classes. As a project developer, I learned instructional
strategies with technology that helps me to collaborate with teachers and facilitate
classroom activities in STEM classes. Developing this 3-day campus-based PD sessions,
I learned to use the PD as a metric for assessing teachers’ knowledge of technology
integration. Consequently, I gained the skills to become a developer for the 3-day
campus-based PD sessions to improve the STEM teachers’ technology implementation in
their classroom teaching.
Reflection on Importance of the Work
My reflection on the importance of this work led me to recognize that this
qualitative bounded case study is important to (a) the participants in the study, (b) the
instructional staff and administrators at the urban high school that served as the project
study site, and (c) the southeastern U.S. school district’s leadership. In this study, I
learned that teachers are the most important variable in delivering effective technology
instruction in science classrooms. I learned that an effective PD training on technology
integration should result in teachers providing students with the opportunity to investigate
and find solutions to real-world problems. In this qualitative bounded case study, I
learned how to (a) examine the role of technology integration in STEM education, (b)
explore new methods and ideas for classroom technology use, (c) eliminate common
barriers to technology integration into the STEM curriculum, and (d) integrate available
instructional technology tools into the STEM curriculum to enhance students’ learning
outcomes.
Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research
The research for this project study could benefit teachers at the local level and
beyond the local level by providing support to educators experiencing difficulty using
technology in their classroom for teaching in the STEM curriculum. In addition, this
project study could influence PD on incorporating technology in classroom instructional
practices as a continuous process in the STEM curriculum. Valdmann et al. (2017)
asserted that the effectiveness of a professional development program is intended to
promote teachers’ self-confidence and skills in the classroom setting (p. 577). I designed
this PD project as a support structure for STEM teachers and teachers in other content
areas and other school districts in the area. In addition, I designed this PD project to
increase technology use in the STEM curriculum.
The data findings from this study led to the design of a 3-day campus-based PD
project. Consequently, since STEM teachers were required to use technology in their
classroom teaching, it is important that PD be provided to them to address the concerns
they expressed during the interviews. In addition to this project study, future research is
recommended to increase the efficacy, success, and usefulness of instructional practices
in relation to students’ optimal learning outcomes in the STEM curriculum.
Implications
A major implication of this project study is that the project may provide STEM
teachers with continuous PD support. After the campus-based PD sessions, the STEM
teachers need to be continuously supported during the implementation phase of project
development to improve their instructional practices. This continuous support is needed
for teachers to improve their performance.
Social Change
This qualitative bounded case study examined how teachers implemented
technology and described their technology knowledge, content, and pedagogy in their
classroom teaching to improve students’ learning outcomes in science. Data findings
were used to design PD for teachers as a support structure to address the problem of
technology integration into STEM classes. The PD has been designed to change teacher
participants’ instructional practices in STEM classes to promote students’ optimal
learning outcomes.
The PD is designed to inspire positive social change among the teacher
participants by addressing the concerns they expressed during the interviews. According
to Ott (2018), positive social change is achieved through PD that helps teachers to
accomplish classroom reform in the school setting. Sales, Moliner, and Francisco (2017)
concurred, arguing that PD inspires social change when teachers collaborate with one
another to improve students’ academic growth. Therefore, social change may be achieved
through an effective PD that improves the classroom instructional practices of the teacher
participants in this study.
Khan and Khan (2017) stated that analysis of different educational systems
indicates that efforts made to bring social change reforms through PD and improve the
quality of education were fundamentally linked with the quality of teachers (p. 211). As
the researcher, I believe that successful implementation of the PD has the potential to
begin the process of social change at the study site in this southeastern school district.
Future Research
A major recommendation for future research is to assess the STEM content
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge of the teachers to identify their strengths and
weaknesses for continuous resolution of the problem of technology integration.To
investigate this problem, a qualitative research study could be used. Participant interviews
could reveal teachers’ knowledge using TPACK and their strengths and weaknesses in
integrating technology.
Conclusion
This project study was designed to address the problem of technology integration
in STEM classes at the study site in a southeastern U.S. school district. After the
implementation of the PD designed for this project study, it is expected that the STEM
teacher participants, other subject teachers, and administrators at the urban high school,
as well as the leadership at the southeastern school district, will benefit from the study.
After the implementation of the PD training designed for this project study, it is
expected that the STEM teacher participants will benefit from the training to improve
their technology integration and classroom instructional practices. The study site may
benefit from the project because technology integration provides students the opportunity
to investigate and find solutions to real-world problems using technology. This project
study may benefit the study site because technology integration provides students with an
avenue to interact with people of diverse cultures, develop collaborative skills with
others, and become active in the global economy.
After the implementation of the PD, the school district may benefit from this
project study by resolving any issues with technology integration. The school district may
benefit from this project study by receiving data to use in decision making and policy
formulation. This project study could benefit the school district by improving students’
learning outcomes in STEM classes and other subject areas. In addition, this project study
could benefit school administrators at the site by providing PD for other content teachers
experiencing difficulty in implementing technology integration into their classroom
teaching.
