Survey of Teachers’ Use of and Preferences for
Professional Development Regarding Available
Technology
Section 1: The Problem
Introduction
Technology is an integral part of modern life; computers, laptops, and smart
phones are in frequent use. Students raised during the last 20 years have been consistently
immersed in technologies (Helsper & Eyman, 2010) that include phones, computers,
electronic musical equipment, televisions, DVDs, videos, cameras, and game consoles
before they even start school (Plowman, McPake, & Stephen, 2010). Varol (2014) states
that technology advancements have a considerable influence on educational systems.
Despite this influence, it is unclear if technology in schools is sufficiently modern.
Schools educate the future adults of society; thus, schools should stay current regarding
technological trends and advancements. Instead, some schools are behind. According to
President Obama (2014), in his speech Enhancing Education Through Technology,
“Technology is not a silver bullet. It’s only as good as the teachers … using it as one
more tool to help inspire, and teach, and work through problems.” As technology use in
society increases, the need for technologies to be used in the classroom increases
(Dagget, 2010). In turn, professional development (PD) for teachers in these new
technologies also needs to increase.
In many districts, such as the research site for this study, there are no funds for
more technology and funds for increased PD are limited. The problem is that there is no
comprehensive information from this medium-sized urban district regarding teachers’
technology use and preferences for PD (Technology Director, personal communication,
September 2, 2013). In this project study I collected this comprehensive information to
aid the district technology staff in their decisions regarding access to technology and
providing PD. Data-based decision-making may increase the use of district-owned
technology and enable the delivery of desired professional development, which in turn
may also increase the use of technology. New technology can be an improvement, but
improving the use of technology the school already has can also be an improvement.
The Local Problem
The problem across this district is the lack of data on what currently accessible
technology and technology learning activities (TLAs) teachers use, have access to, and
for what activities they want professional development (PD). TLA is a term created for
this study that refers to the wide range of interactive student-centered learning activities
that are supported by different software, websites, and apps. This needs-assessment will
provide the district technology staff with information that will help the staff support
teachers to use technology more and to use technology in the service of learning content
objectives.
The gap in practice is that district technology staff do not have data-based
information for maximizing the district’s approximately 300 teachers use of technology
and TLAs through the organization of resources and PD (Technology Coordinator,
personal communication, September 2, 2013). The context is that in this mid-size urban
district, purchasing new technology (released after 2015) is still a luxury, and budget
deficits make it unlikely that this will change. Teachers need to make the best use of
currently accessible technology, but many teachers do not use the technology that is
available to them and do not know what TLAs they could use technology for
(Technology Coordinator, personal communication, September 2, 2013). Encouraging
and helping teachers to use TLAs may be one way of increasing teachers’ technology use
without having to purchase new technology. For example, technology coaches would
prefer to educate teachers on how to make use of the advantages of technology, how to
integrate technology with the content objectives of lessons, and help teachers use TLAs
that may be more worthwhile because TLAs by definition are student-centered.
Currently, technology coordinators are frustrated by teacher requests for help to turn
worksheets into electronic worksheets, which is not an example of integrating technology
(Technology Coach Middle School, personal communication, December 2, 2013). The
coordinators would like to show teachers how a TLA could include regularly using
textbook supplied software that tracks student progress in a subject area for the teacher
and adjusts the difficulty of content based on each students’ performance. This software
gives the teacher computerized differentiation of the content to fit the individual student’s
educational levels. To focus attention on the integration of technology, this study asks
which TLAs teachers are interested in learning, and which technology the teachers
already feel comfortable using. The study will ask teachers specific survey questions
about what technology they have access to, what type of TLAs they currently use, and
what their desire for PD is for specific technology and TLAs.
The survey (Appendix B) will be useful because it will give the district data that
combines common survey questions about access and use of technology from the
literature with a section of survey items about TLAs. The combination is useful to the
district because it provides not only the traditional basic information about access and
use, but also collects information about technology integration such as the TLAs. Indeed,
the final section of the survey includes a list of TLAs, including interactive
studentcentered uses of technology such as Google Docs cooperative writing tasks.
Teachers will indicate for each technology and TLA their use of each and desire for PD in
each. The problem is that there is no data to give the technology coordinator of the
district an indication of what technology is used, accessed, or what professional
development is desired or needed in the district. This data gives the technology
coordinator of the district a baseline for current use and a direction for planning PD. The
problem that the district does not have data about teacher technology use may be resolved
by conducting this survey study. The gap in practice is that technology staff do not
currently have the data this study will collect to plan to redistribute available technology
to teachers and plan PD that will be helpful to the teachers.
Evidence of the Problem at the Local Level
The problem is that the school district has no comprehensive information
regarding teachers’ use, access, and desire for PD in terms of technology. Even in the
schools in this district that have new technology, the technology coordinator stated that as
coordinators they are struggling to help their teachers integrate technology into
instruction (personal communication, June 3, 2014). Technology leaders need more
information in order to plan efficiently. The Technology Coordinator for the school
district (personal communication, June 3, 2014) stated that the district is not sure what to
do to help teachers integrate the technology the district has purchased. She continued,
“The teachers have state of the art technology, but I never see it used in the classroom”
(Technology Coordinator, personal communication, June 3, 2014). According to the
Technology Coordinator (personal communication, June 3, 2014), it does not matter how
much technology the teachers have, the technology coordinators believe, but do not have
data to support their beliefs, that as technology coordinators they can do a better job of
helping teachers use what technology they do have.
This is important information to collect but is heightened by the context of this
study, which is that there is no money for new technology and there are few technology
coordinators to provide PD. This school district is operating on a budgetary deficit and is
on monetary restrictions from the Midwestern state. Since 2013, the district closed
approximately eight school buildings due to population loss and budgeting concerns.
Technology access and use. The technology coordinators need a comprehensive
view of teachers’ technology access and use. According to the middle school technology
coach (Technology Coach Middle School, personal communication, November 23,
2012), many teachers across the district are dissatisfied with the technology to which they
have access. The teachers in this district are frustrated with the reality of shared
interactive whiteboards, a secure Intranet that blocks many websites, and LCD projectors
on rolling carts that move whenever a student walks past (two first-year teachers and one
second-year teacher, personal communication, September 9, 2012). New teachers report
confusion about the technology accessible to them and how to integrate that technology
into their lesson activities (two first-year teachers, one second-year teacher, personal
communication, September 9, 2012). One new teacher said she was expecting interactive
whiteboards in every classroom, unlimited Internet access, projectors mounted on every
ceiling, and the professional development to use them (second-year teacher, personal
communication, January 2, 2012). In an informal personal discussion, one new teacher
reported that she did not plan for the poor technology in this school district and cannot
use many of the ideas she found online (first-year teacher, personal communication,
August 10, 2012) because the ideas require technology that she did could not access. For
example, in one building, the three teachers with the least seniority have teacher
workstation desktops that were bought 10 years ago and are not able to run many of the
necessary computer programs or up to date websites (technology lead teacher, personal
communication, October 15, 2013). These multiple examples of personal communication
are evidence that what is needed is a thorough and systematic accounting of teachers’
access and use of each technology to improve situations such as outdated technology and
lack of training. In summary, the survey administered in this project study will provide
something that the district needs, a current accounting of teachers’ perceptions of what
technology teachers have access to, how much they want to use each technology, the
amount of access they have to each technology, and their preferences to get PD on each
technology. With this information, the staff may be able to reorganize existing resources
to support teachers better, even if they cannot purchase new equipment.
One specific area where there is evidence of a significant need for support is the
use of interactive whiteboards. Most schools in the district have two or three interactive
whiteboards that the teachers roll from classroom to classroom as needed. Through
discussions with school librarians, (school librarians, personal communication, December
5, 2012), I discovered that in many of the schools, the boards remain idle for the whole
academic year. The interactive whiteboards remain stored in the library or in only one or
two teachers’ classrooms. Librarians often hear teachers comment that the boards are too
difficult to move and hook up. When two or three teachers a week want to use the same
board, it is difficult to schedule and physically move the board from room to room. The
data collected in this survey may make it possible to improve this situation, for example,
by planning a schedule for technical help to move whiteboards. There are a few other
areas that are a problem in terms of lack of use. While it is good that through the help of
grants, the district was able to purchase interactive whiteboards for every classroom for a
couple of school buildings, lack of consistent use may still be a significant problem
according to principals who report they are not in use on a consistent basis (elementary
principal, personal communication, November 4, 2013). Additional evidence of the
problem that teachers may not be using technology is that the district also has student
response systems available to teachers, but it appears that they seldom use them
(technology lead teacher, personal communication, October 15, 2013). The findings of
this study might indicate that teachers want more PD for interactive whiteboards and
student response systems. Increase in PD for this technology may lead to an increase in
its use.
The problem is that it appears that teachers are not using technology hardware or
software, but we do not have sufficient documentation of the problems. For example,
technology staff also need data about access to laptops. According to one principal
(elementary principal, personal communication, November 4, 2013) her school, like other
schools in the district, have over four hundred students and only 72 laptops. These are
distributed among four laptop carts that are available to her staff. The teachers check out
the carts to use in their classrooms. A few of the elementary schools have made decisions
to have the upper grades use the laptops while the lower grades share one computer lab
available in each school. Laptops are valuable for a wide array of reasons, including that
textbooks have computer components. Teacher and student access to laptops need to be
systematically documented for the district technology staff’s use. In summary, the district
has issues regarding technology access and use in terms of regular teacher workstations,
shared and classroom interactive whiteboards, and laptops.
Technology learning activities (TLAs). The problem of lack of data not only
includes teachers use of technology, but the use of TLA’s and the integration of the
technologies. According to the technology coach, (Technology Coach Middle School,
personal communication, January 14, 2013) there is no depth to the integration of
technology. A TLA is an in-depth use of technology; an example is when teachers ask
students to use features of Google Docs to create papers with pictures or diagrams, share
for peer review, and electronically have students submit their work. In contrast, a
lowdepth use of technology example is when teachers may ask students to complete a
worksheet in a Google Doc. Several new teachers express another low-depth use of
technology (two first-year teachers, 2 second-year teachers, March 25, 2013), feeling the
primary objective of technology use was to use the Internet to discover educational
resources. A third example of low-depth technology use is teachers use of interactive
whiteboards as a giant touchscreen rather than creating in-depth lessons integrating the
interactive whiteboard and connected technologies into lessons. In-depth integrated uses
of technology to achieve learning goals such as the TLAs in this survey need to replace
these and other low-depth technology uses.
There are also examples of no-use of technology. A first example is that teachers
do not use Google Docs because they do not feel comfortable enough with their training
(personal communication, four elementary teachers and five middle school teachers,
February 20, 2017). A second example is that teachers do not use the Interactive
Whiteboard materials provided with their new series of textbooks (personal
communication, four elementary teachers, and five middle school teachers, February 20,
2017). One middle school teacher summed up the four elementary teachers and five
Middle School teachers feelings, stating that she feels that her lack of training would
make her look inferior to the students (personal communication, fifth-grade teacher,
February 20, 2017). This study could identify the PD that teachers want and need
regarding TLAs that could support their in-depth integration of technology.
Evidence of the Problem from the Professional Literature
The problem is that the district does not have information about their teachers’
technology use, access, and desire for PD. These three issues are also reflected in the
professional literature. In terms of increasing technology use, Peck (2012) states that
“Technology will not replace teachers, teachers who use technology will replace those
who do not” (forward). According to experts, part of the problem is that teachers need to
move past using the technology for strictly administrative tasks and move toward
integrating technology into the learning process (McCannon & Crews, 2000). According
to experts, part of the problem is that teachers’ use of technology for student learning
needs to increase past record-keeping (Hammonds, Matherson, Wilson, & Wright, 2013).
To use technology, teachers need access to available technology.
The problem in this study there is the lack of data regarding what currently
accessible technology and TLAs teachers use, have access to, and for which technology
and TLAs they desire PD. In terms of the issue of access, the research is clear that to use
technology, teachers often need access. Yet access does not guarantee use. Unal and
Ozturk (2012) find that most (66%) of the teachers in their study who have technology in
their classroom use it frequently. They also found that the teachers without readily
available technology in their rooms stated that lack of easy access is the reason the
teachers do not use it. While the placement of equipment is a barrier, some researchers
report that a lack of technical support also decreases teacher use of technology
(Hammond et al., 2009). Overall, teachers are unlikely to use the technology they have
difficulty using. Systematically collecting data on where the difficulties to access
technology or technical assistance are needed may improve the technology department’s
ability to improve the situation. If they know where the problems are, they can develop
solutions.
In terms of the issue of using TLAs or integration of technology, the research is
clear that teachers need to move beyond basic uses such as typing. Some researchers
(Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013; Rahman, Zaid, Abdullah, Mohamed, & Aris, 2015;
Gibson, Stringer, Cotten, Simoni, O'Neal, & Howell-Moroney, 2013) stress that teachers
cannot use technology just for the sake of using technology. Teachers are being asked to
use technology in their classrooms but just putting technology in front of students will not
affect student learning if the teachers are not using it with fidelity, reason, and as a part of
their teaching (Rahman, Zaid, Abdullah, Mohamed, & Aris, 2015). Johri (2011) discusses
that, for technology use to be meaningful, the teachers need to use the structure of regular
use, reflecting on and developing teaching with appropriate technology. Gibson et al.
(2013) concludes that when teachers have more interventions in their computer use, they
become more comfortable with the technology, and therefore are able to support students
better; as a result, the students show an increase in their acceptance of technology as a
learning tool. There needs to be a reason or theory behind the use of technology in the
classroom (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013).
The purpose of this study is to gain a thorough accounting of teachers use, access
to, and desire for PD for technology and TLAs. The purpose of determining these
correlations is to guide technology staff decision. If there is a positive correlation between
PD and technology use, then the department can continue their PD efforts with the
knowledge that it increases teacher technology use. If there is a negative correlation then
changes to the current PD practices will need to be changed. The correlation between
buildings and the teachers’ average desire for PD will indicate to the district where to
locate the PD sessions because that is where there is the strongest desire. The descriptive
statistics and correlation analysis will give the technology staff information to plan their
work to meet the needs of teachers. For example, if teachers report sufficient access to
interactive whiteboards but a strong desire for PD for interactive whiteboards, this may be
a priority area for PD. The problem across this district is the lack of data on currently
accessible technology, on access to technology, and use of TLAs and on teacher
preferences for PD. The gap in practice is that the district technology staff do not have
data to make plans for maximizing the district’s approximately 300 teachers use of
technology and TLAs through the organization of resources and PD (technology
coordinator, personal communication, September 2, 2013).
Definition of Terms
Technology integration: Technology integration is the use of technology resources
such as: computers, interactive whiteboards, smartphones, tablets, digital cameras, social
media, software, and the Internet in daily classroom learning practices and management.
Successful technology integration is achieved when the use of technology is: (a) routine
and transparent; (b) accessible and readily available for the task, (c) supports curricular
goals and helping the students to effectively reach their goals (Edutopia, 2011).
Technology tool: This is any hardware or software used in the classroom. In the
survey used in this study, technology tools are the hardware and software that are
typically used in current classrooms. They include, for example, hardware such as iPads
and computers, and software such as Skyward record keeping and the Microsoft Suite.
Technology Learning Activity (TLA): TLA is a term created for this study that
refers to the very wide range of interactive student-centered learning activities that are
supported by different software, websites, and apps. The third question on the survey
used in this study has a list of TLAs, but it is by no means exhaustive. One hallmark of a
TLA is that it be integrated to meet the content objectives of a lesson. Interaction with
technology can prepare students for learning experiences, but there also needs to be an
educational ingredient to truly influence the students’ learning (McManis & Gunnewig,
2012). The ultimate goal is to help teachers use technology more and use technology in
the service of learning content objectives with TLAs.
21st century skills: The skills necessary for the 21st-century workplace that
generally fall into three categories: cognitive, interpersonal, & intrapersonal. First, the
cognitive is critical thinking, analytic reasoning, and how to learn "deeply.” Second,
interpersonal skill includes teamwork and complex communication. Finally, intrapersonal
skill includes attributes such as resiliency and conscientiousness (EdWeek, 2012).
Teacher professional development hours: This refers to the numbers of hours that
participants indicate they have participated in professional development.
Overall desire for professional development: This refers to the mean rating that
teachers have assigned to all of the questions regarding how much they would like
professional development in a group or coaching situation. These will be aggregated for
each grade level.
School building: This refers to each individual school building that teachers
indicate their classroom is in.
Technology professional development: This refers to professional development
workshops that are specific to a type of software or hardware teachers are to use in the
classroom.
Teacher’s overall use of technology: This refers to time spent using technology.
Grade level: This refers to each grade level K-12 that teachers indicate they teach.
Significance of the Study
The immediate significance of this survey research is that it may provide
information that results in data to drive an action plan for the technology staff, which
would be a contribution to the local setting. This study could have a significant impact on
the district’s ability to focus their technology PD on what is necessary and not on
educated guessing of what teachers need. Some teachers complain that technology
professional development workshops are focused on general skills that are not
internalized and used by teachers and are therefore a waste of money. It could be more
cost-effective if PD is targeted according to what teachers desire and will put into
practice. The district in question has limited funding for professional development. The
district is currently deciding what technology professional development to offer teachers,
and decisions are random or based on ideas about what teachers may want(Technology
Coordinator, personal communication, September 2, 2013). The overall goal of the
technology department is to help teachers increase student learning with the use of
technology (Technology Coordinator, personal communication, September 2, 2013).
Mumtaz (2000) found that over the last two decades, studies show an increase in student
achievement through students’ use of technology. The targeted technology PD will help
teachers bring technology to their students in a productive way and in turn, improve their
student’s achievement.
Another significant factor of this research is that by focusing on using technology
that is currently accessible, an effort can be made toward making the best use of resources
possible. This focus would include using TLAs that use technology currently in the
school. The potential long-term significance of this contribution could be an increase in
technology access, additional desired PD, and overall technology use
Finally, schools across the country likely lack data on usage, TLAs, and PD, and
could potentially use this survey to collect data on their schools to improve their own
situations. For example, there is evidence that some districts are rich in technology for
their students but cannot find teachers trained in the use of the technology-based activities
as an integrated part of the instruction (Singhal, 2013). This survey could help them make
data-based decisions on the PD they offer.
In summary, this research is significant to the district because it will identify the
problems with access to technology, it will identify any low use that can be increased,
and identify the needs and preferences of the type of technology that teachers want to use.
Data analysis will also investigate if there are two correlations: if there is a significant
positive correlation between technology PD hours and technology use and if there is a
significant positive correlation between building and desire for PD. No correlation would
have an absolute value of r < 0.3, a very weak correlation would be 0.3 < r <0.5, a
moderate correlation would be 0.5 < r < 0.7, and a strong correlation would be r > 0.7.
This information will inform decisions of the technology department for the district as
they explore different professional development programs. The survey is an opportunity
for the teachers to provide the district with a specific set of teacher needs in regard to
technology and their teaching. This is important because by tailoring the professional
development to the needs of the teachers, the district may save time and money.
Research Question(s) and Hypotheses
The research questions are to best inform the technology department staff about
where they might be able to provide PD to increase the use of technology and TLAs. This
survey asks about the teachers’ current access, use, and desire for PD for each technology
and TLA. The first research question asks how accessible each technology is. This is the
most common way to survey teachers about technology. It may be that some technology
could be more accessible if technology directors know which buildings are having access
problems.
Research Questions 2 and 3 refer to teachers use of and desire for PD for each
technology. Questions 4 and 5 refer to use and desire for PD for each TLA. Research
Questions 2-5 are designed to guide technology directors’ planning for PD to increase use
according to teacher desires.
The next two research questions are investigating correlations. The sixth research
question is to investigate whether teachers who have had more technology-based training
use technology more frequently. If this correlation is positive, then it is more likely that
the training efforts that teachers have participated in have increased the use of
technology. This is also a commonly asked question for technology surveys. The seventh
research question investigates whether there is any correlation between a building and an
overall desire for PD. This possible correlation may be used to direct effort toward the
buildings that would most desire PD. Finally, Questions 8 and 9 ask for data that will
answer a logistical question for the technology department. The data analyses can help
technology coordinators schedule and advertise the most desirable PD in the right
building, and design it to focus on a particular grade level.
RQ1. How accessible is each technology tool?
RQ 2. How much do teachers use each technology tool?
RQ 3: How much do teachers want PD for each technology tool?
RQ 4: How much do teachers use each TLA?
RQ 5: How much do teachers want PD for each TLA?
RQ6: Is there a significant positive correlation between teachers’ overall use of
technology and their hours of technology professional development?
H6o: There is no significant positive correlation between teachers’ use of
technology and their hours of technology professional development.
H6a: There is a significant positive correlation between the teachers’ use of
technology and their hours of technology professional development.
RQ 7: Is there a significant positive correlation between teachers’ overall desire for PD
and their building?
H7o: There is no significant positive correlation between teachers’ desire for PD
and their building.
H7a: There is a significant positive correlation between the teachers’ desire for
PD and their building.
RQ8: For each building and grade level, what are the instructional tools that teachers
give the 4.0 or higher mean ratings for desiring PD?
RQ 9: For each building and grade level, what are the TLAs that teachers give 4.0 or
higher mean ratings for desiring PD?
Review of Literature
The problem experienced by the study district is the lack of data on what currently
accessible technology and TLAs teachers’ use, have access to, and what PD they desire.
The data will be collected at the building level to determine if there is a correlation
between building and desire for PD to locate PD meetings in buildings where there is the
most desire. The ultimate goal is to provide the district technology staff with information
that will help the staff support teachers to use technology more and to use technology in
the service of learning content objectives. The gap in practice is that the district
technology staff do not have data to develop plans for maximizing the use of technology
and TLAs through the organization of resources and PD (technology coordinator,
personal communication, September 2, 2013).
This literature review will begin with a review of the theoretical foundations of
this study. Next, I will describe the influence of technology on schools and students,
including the changing technologies in the classroom and technology integration and
student engagement. Then I will present teachers’ preparation to use technology for
teaching and learning. Then I will present a review of the literature about teacher efficacy
and preparation programs, teacher support and professional development, and technology
needs and barriers.
To collect the research for this review, I used EBSCO Host Education databases
and used the following search terms: technology education, technology integration,
technology activities, technology learning activities, technology professional
development, technology needs assessment, educational software programs, and
SMARTboard integration. I also combined search terms, looked through reference lists,
and used the cited by feature provided by Google Scholar to locate articles that had cited
an article I found useful for my study. The following headings organize the literature
review: theoretical foundation, the influence of technology on schools, including
changing technology and technology integration, and student engagement. The next
sections are on teachers; including teacher preparation to use technology, teacher efficacy
and preparation programs, teacher support and professional development, and technology
needs and barriers.
The focus of the literature review was general use of technology. Recent articles
within the last five years are a requirement for the purposes of this dissertation.
Unfortunately, many general technology use surveys studies were completed at the
beginning of the technology boom in education over ten years ago. In contrast, recent
studies focus on a specific type of technology, such as iPads or a specific genre of use,
such as writing or math. This literature review has a combination of recent and older
articles. The older articles focus on general technology use and I feel these studies give a
good overall view of teachers and general technology use. When compared with some of
the more recent specific technology and or subject area studies the results are similar and
consistent.
Theoretical Foundation
Constructivist learning is defined as constructing knowledge from a multitude of
sources in different ways based on each individual’s unique experiences and beliefs
(Paily, 2013). Constructivism applies to both the student and the teachers, and how
technology influences their learning experiences. This study specifically looks at the
teachers’ learning needs and desires. Constructivism aligns with this study because I
assume that teachers do not construct learning from merely having the technology tools.
Rather teachers need to experience and interact with technology activities in specific
professional development.
Teachers’ instruction with technology sometimes results in constructivist learning
for students. Mueller and Wood (2012) found that teachers are supportive of technology
integration to help with the constructivist ideas, using the terms “authentic tasks” and
“self-regulated learning” to describe their technology lessons. Educators today require
students to use higher-order thinking skills (HOTS). Though this is an older study, these
skills are still incorporated into 21st-century skills and require the students to think in
more creative and real-world ways so that they can be competitive in an international
workforce (Tucker, 2014). In the past, this might have meant books, textbooks, and
information from people in their immediate area. Now, with the use of technology, the
world of digitized information is open to students.
As was stated many years ago and still holds true today, digitized information
“leads to the evolution of new concepts and innovative teaching techniques in the
instruction-learning process, changing the way teachers teach and students learn. This
changing landscape of education focuses on learning, rather than on teaching and
pedagogy, curriculum and instruction” (Neo & Neo, 2009, p. 254).
With the assistance of digital technology, students are able to take virtual field
trips to other countries, interview scholars around the world, and discover the information
they would never have been able to before. This makes each students’ learning
increasingly constructivist as they each experience different information and resources in
their assignments.
One leading theorist of constructivism was Lev Vygotsky. He is considered a
social constructivist because of his focus on how society, including people and tools,
shape the understanding of the human being (Fosnot, 2013). One concept Vygotsky uses
is appropriation, in which a tool gradually became a part of a person’s means of
interacting with the world, including learning within the world. The teachers in this study
are essentially being asked, “What tools have you appropriated already and what tools
would you like help appropriating for teaching in your classrooms?” The process of
appropriation, according to Vygotsky, depends on many factors including time, the tool
itself, the goals for using the tool, and the learner’s motivation for using the tool (Daniels,
2016).
Broad Review of the Literature
The Influence of Technology on Schools
Changing technology. The world is becoming a technological playground. New
technologies are developing rapidly and changing the way everyone completes even the
most fundamental tasks. Twenty-five years ago, when college students needed to conduct
research, they would spend hours in the library going through microfiche and card
catalogs to look up journals. Today they use internet searches to download articles.
Technology in school includes the internet at students’ fingertips, social networking, and
moved from a passive environment to a more active technological one (Mattar, 2018)
Indeed, in some schools, students have personal technology available to them at all times.
Two article in this paragraph that were written years ago apply to today’s schools.
Technology has been a part of teaching for many years; many schools have at least a
computer lab (Hammonds, et al., 2013). As Hammonds, et al. (2013) pointed out,
educators today are dealing with students that are carrying their smartphones, tablets, and
other technology with them. In some schools bringing personal laptop computers is
allowed, and in other schools laptops are provided to each student. According to Leer and
Ivanov (2013) technology in the classroom can manifest itself in many ways, from virtual
field trips, online learning, videos, to ways that have not yet been discovered. The use of
technology is increasing in schools, but there is a difference between using technology
and integrating technology as the technology integration and student engagement section
discusses.
When students are given opportunities to learn using technology it may give them a
different understanding of technology. Mawson (2010) conducted a study focusing on
children’s understandings of technology and how this understanding changes over the
years. He wants to help teachers develop a better understanding of how students develop
their technological construct. Children’s understanding of technology could influence the
way a teacher teaches. The longitudinal, ethnographic study focuses on students under the
age of 11. It was conducted in two phases. The first phrase follows 20 children through
the first three years of primary school. The second phase of the study follows 7 of the 20
students through 3 more years of primary school. Mawson (2010) concludes that the
students’ technology skills were more advanced than the technology-based lessons he
was planning for them. He also concludes that the more technology is integrated into the
curriculum, the more the students see how it impacts their lives in and out of school.
Mawson concludes that technology was not just a specific tool to do a specific task, but
rather, technology is something students can use in other parts of their lives.
Technology is being used as part of innovative instructional techniques such as
model-based inquiry. Using technology in the classroom this way can be a means of
discovering information in a positive, engaging way. Wilkerson, Andrews, Shaban,
Laina, and Gravel (2016) research how pre-service teachers engage in creating lessons
using different types of model-based inquiry. The study involved 11 pre-service teachers
during a 5-week professional development workshop. Wilkerson et al. (2016) collect data
throughout the workshop, including videos of student interactions, assignments, both
digital and paper-pencil, and the final project. They found that students creating
technological simulations were substantially more engaged than students just creating
animations. The students had more in-depth discussions around the simulations over the
animations. When creating the simulations, the students did not know how things would
turn out, they did not know the outcome, and could change the scenarios. When creating
the animations, the students had to create an outcome; it was more straightforward. This
type of engagement can be created in the classroom when teachers integrate the
technology with TLAs such as simulations, rather than use it as an administrative tool
(Wilkerson, et al, 2016).
Gresnigt, Taconis, van Keulen, Gravemeijer, and Baartman, (2014) were curious
to find out the advantages and disadvantages of technology integration on the science
curriculum. They conduct a review of recent work and studies done investigating using
technology in elementary science classes. Gresnigt, Taconis, van Keulen, Gravemeijer,
and Baartman, (2014) were looking for the different successes and issues that arose
during the different integration models. The researchers develop a hierarchy or staircase
for the different levels of integration. The loser level was referred to as “Isolated/cellular/
fragmented” and the staircase rose through 6 levels to the highest level of
“Trandisciplinary” or full integration (Gresnigt, Taconis, van Keulen, Gravemeijer, &
Baartman, 2014). As they reviewed past literature, they found that there was not enough
to do a thorough analysis. To increase validity, they develop a focus group made up of
teachers and other researchers. This focus group gave depth to their empirical base and
gave the researchers an insight into classroom practices. The analysis found that the use
of technology in the primary science classroom was beneficial. Student engagement was
higher, the students understood the content, and were able to apply it in authentic
situations. The two main hindrances that Gresnigt, Taconis, van Keulen, Gravemeijer,
and Baartman, (2014) found were the results were also highly influenced by teacher
efficacy in science and technology and the level of PD workshops needed to help raise
teacher efficacy. The more authentic quality PD the teachers have, the more efficacy they
show, which in turn was seen in the teachers’ use of technology in the science class.
Technology integration and student engagement. Devlin, Feldhous, and
Bentrem (2013) conducted a study that can still be useful for today’s educator.
Technology is commonplace in our schools today, and its use enhances student
engagement and learning (Devlin et al., 2013). Devlin et al. implement an action research
project that use a concurrent triangulation, mixed-methods design that consist of both
qualitative interviews and quantitative survey components. The researchers were curious
to find which genre students thought were more engaging and easier to follow when
given instructions, in person or through video. The study includes three classes made up
of 50 students who were given instructions through video and three classes of 37 students
who were given instructions in person. Devlin et al. found students were more engaged
when using, listening to, or working with technology. This general observation that
students are engaged when using technology was made more specific when Devlin et al.
found that students were more thoughtful when given instructions through a video rather
than verbally. Furthermore, Devlin et al. found that the students were more inspired to
work cooperatively and were determined to do their project well.
Neo and Neo (2009) conduct a research study regarding students’ engagement in
learning during multi-media use. They want to learn the impact that multi-media has on
students learning that were not familiar with the problem-solving design environment.
The sample includes 53 students who were all in their second-year of study in a
Malaysian University. The students were placed in groups, given the theme of
“Malaysian Culture,” and asked to develop a multi-media presentation. At the end of the
presentation, the students were given a survey asking them to self-reflect on key
components such as motivation, critical-thinking and creativity skills, teamwork,
presentation and communication skills, and overall attitudes towards learning with
multimedia and developing a multimedia project. Neo and Neo conclude in their study
that students were more engaged and motivated when presented with a multi-media
assignment. In addition, the students also communicate a higher self-esteem when
completing the assignment. As Cranston (2012) emphasized in 2012 but can still be
applied today, if teachers embrace the engagement technology incites in students, then the
teachers in our schools may be better able to meet the challenges of 21st century
technology rich students and classrooms.
Technology engages students, but what is student engagement? Measuring student
engagement and technology can be very difficult. Student engagement can be helpful in
determining the success or failure of technology integration and their success
academically and socially (Henrie, Halverson, & Graham, 2015). Henrieet al. conduct a
literature review investigating measuring student engagement and technology. Henrie et
al. found that teachers are a critical component to student engagement with technology.
The researchers search three dominant educational and technology databases looking for
any scholarly journal articles that dealt with student engagement. The reviewers initially
end their search with 407 unique articles. After reviewing the initial articles for studies
that specifically contained data on measurement of student engagement in an academic
setting, the initial 407 studies were narrowed down to 176 publications. Henrie, et al.
found that a universal definition of student engagement is necessary. Henrie, et al. also
found that due to their ease of use that quantitative, scalable surveys were the most used
measurement. Due to the expense of both time and money student observation was not as
common. The reviewers were surprised that systematic reports of student technology use
were not as common as they thought. In summary, the research on student engagement
needs a consistent definition but it was found that the activity that students are asked to
perform by their teachers using technology does affect engagement levels of the students.
Engaging technologies that may integrate into classroom instruction are called
TLAs in this project study. There exists a wide variety of software and apps that are
considered TLAs in this project study. Concept-mapping apps are one example.
Stevenson, Hartmeyer and Bentsen (2017) conducted a thematic review of different
concept-mapping (CM) articles and how CM heightens self-regulated learning in science
education. The reviewers searched five databases and found seventeen studies that they
found relevant. The databases include articles that were outside of the realm of
technology and education. They want to make sure they include studies in other genres.
Stevenson et al) investigate articles that fit the specific criteria of pertaining to students in
elementary and secondary science classes. The reviewers wrote narratives for three
domains of self-regulated learning including; cognitive, metacognitive, and motivation
strategies. Concerning cognitive strategies, Stevenson et al. found that CM technologies
may support cognitive strategies necessary for self-regulated learning. The review reveals
that student learning can increase when a clear and concise path of learning is provided.
Metacognition processes were improved with the use of technology, including a positive
impact of immediate feedback on student performance within the software (Stevenson,
Hartmeyer & Bentsen, 2017). In regard to motivation, Stevensonet al. found that
technology did not always have a positive effect on motivation even though it did
increase learning. Thus, CM has a positive impact on learning, cognition, and
metacognition but not always on motivation.
Another example of a TLA is story mapping technologies. Strachan and
Mitchell’s (2014) explore whether teachers felt that Ersi Story Maps were useful and
engaging teaching tools. The sample included 42 participants, 27 of them were K-12
teachers and another 15 were unofficial instructors. The participants were attending
different 2-hour workshops for different subject areas and areas of education. The
participants were asked to voluntarily fill out a survey regarding their experience with the
story map software at the various workshops. Strachan and Mitchell (2014) found that the
participants felt the story mapping software was engaging, helpful, and user-friendly. The
participants felt their students would find them useful. Even though they had a positive
experience, many participants were reluctant to try the story-mapping software on their
own due to nervousness of doing something incorrectly (Strachan & Mitchell, 2014).
Some of the barriers to using story maps in the classroom, mentioned by the participants,
included lack of technology, school firewalls, lack of training, and lack of time. Strachan
and Mitchell reported that a large number of participants mentioned they would integrate
these into their lessons after receiving more professional development. Strachan and
Mitchell state that it is also important that the leaders of the professional development
keep in mind the varying needs of teachers including the level of technology experience
and level of content taught by the educators (Strachan & Mitchell, 2014). Overall, the
participants appreciate the story mapping software but were reluctant to try to use it
without professional development, specifically about the story mapping software. This
may be the case with many TLA; teachers like the idea but need PD.
Computer simulations and virtual realities are one-way technologies used in
education. Merchant, Goetz, Keeney-Kennicutt and Davis (2014) conducte a
metaanalysis of the research literature to determine to what extent virtual reality-based
instruction affect student achievement. They start their review by looking at 7078 articles.
These articles were then narrowed down to 102, and then 67 of those studies met the
criteria decided on by the researchers. The primary criteria was that a learning outcome
measure was the dependent variable in each of the 67 studies. Merchant et al. (2014)
found that the literature overall found positive learning outcomes in response to virtual
reality-based instruction. Further, they found that compared to virtual reality and
simulations, game-based learning was more effective in terms of producing learning
outcomes. In addition, learning through games, independent learning was more effective
than cooperative group work (Merchant, Goetz, Keeney-Kinnicutt and Davis, 2014).
Merchant et al. conclude that virtual reality-based teaching pedagogy creates a positive
learning environment, but there are better learning outcomes with independent
gamebased learning
Changes in teachers’ technology integration overtime is hard to study, due to
changes in technology, changes in goals of integration, behavioral norms, teaching
practices, and conceptual structures but is very important (Hsu, 2017). Hsu re-vamped a
survey from an earlier study of grade 1-9 Taiwanese teachers and technology integration.
The initial survey was given to 3,729 teachers. Three years later, the second survey was
given to 6000 teachers, some being the same teachers from the first survey. The surveys
were not exact in their questions but did measure the same attributes. Hsu found that
teachers’ integration practices did not change much over time and were based mostly in
administrative tasks and or basic integration and use. Hsu also found that the technology
the school used did not necessarily keep pace with technology advancements. One thing
that did come to light was that there was an increase in teachers’ worries about student
internet safety and integrity (Hsu, 2017).
Other researchers have attempted to study technology integration across time.
They, too, found that just having technology does not guarantee teachers are using it with
students. Research has shown that at least for the first two years of a five-year study the
majority of teachers use technology for administrative rather than educative tasks.
Howard, Chan, Mozejko and Caputi (2015) delve into the difference in technology use
and benefits of technology in different subjects. They did a five-year, longitudinal study.
Howard et al. developed a 30-item survey (Teacher Technology Practices) looking at a
range of common teacher-related and student-related technology tasks. The questionnaire
was sent to all secondary teachers in New South Wales, and 300 of these were randomly
selected for exploratory factor analysis. As the years progressed, the English teachers
reported more planned student technology use as a part of their lessons. Howard et al.
found that math teachers were less likely to use technology in their lessons for student
learning. The study was extensive, and the researchers conclude that the subject area is a
mitigating factor. They also identify influencing factors such as teachers’ beliefs in
technology, teaching practices, and school administration. Unfortunately, they found that
many teachers use technology for administrative tasks instead of engaging student use of
technology for learning.
Teachers may be better able to prepare their students for the knowledge to which
they are now exposed and a vast array of places to gather that knowledge. Singhal (2013)
concludes that teachers and technology need to work hand-in-hand to prepare the students
for the demands of their new global world.
Teacher Preparation to Use Technology
The next few studies are older, but the information and results are important for
higher education educators and school districts to consider when developing teacher
preparation programs. Future studies could be done to see if these changes suggested
have been implemented. How the teachers are prepared to use technology in the
classroom is an important aspect of its use. Tondeur et al., (2012) review qualitative
studies about how pre-service teachers are prepared for teaching and using instructional
technology. The researchers use 19 articles for their study. Tondeur et al. (2012) reveal
12 themes. Seven themes were exclusively about pre-service teachers’ preparation and
five themes about what is necessary to implement change at the university level. These
researchers found that technology education that the pre-service teachers receive at their
institutions has a strong impact on the teachers’ actual use of technology in their
classrooms. They conclude that many of the new teachers agree, the sooner they are
exposed to technology at the university level, the better. This was backed by Lopez and
Juste (2009) who found that bringing more technology into the actual classes of
preservice teachers was found to be very helpful in their eventual competencies of
technology.
According to Chesley and Jordan (2012), new teachers indicate that their
universities did not prepare them well enough for the classroom technology of today.
Using two focus groups of about 30 teachers each, the researchers asked each group
about their feelings concerning their respective teacher preparation programs and
technology. The first group was new teachers from 17 universities that had three months
to three years’ experience in the classroom. The second group consisted of experienced
teachers that have acted as mentors for new and beginning teachers. Chelsey and Jordan
also notes that the discrepancy between what technology is taught at the university level
and what is the reality of the classroom is high.
In 2004, the University of North Texas was one of four schools nationwide to be a
finalist for the award of Distinguished Programs in Teacher Education given out by the
Association of Teacher Educators (Christensen & Knezek, 2007). The university earned
this distinction by changing the way it taught and integrated technology education into its
pre-service teaching curriculum. As a part of the Millennium Project, funded by the US
Department of Education’s Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3)
program, the university revamped its teacher education classes and the way they were
delivered. The initiatives not only revolve around what was presented but how it was
presented. These actions include tech guides, Technology Integration Fellows, a
Computer Education, and Cognitive Systems class, and a Computers in the Classroom
class. The professors also made a concerted effort to model technology in every
classroom with online assignments and syllabi, having classes in a computer lab, and then
collecting data. This lead to an increase in the pre-service teachers' technology comfort
level before and after their classes (Christensen & Knezek, 2007).
Hammonds, Matherson, Wilson, & Wright (2013) found that newly hired teachers
should enter the workplace knowing technologies that can be used to engage students and
promote learning. The researchers found that this change in education technique places
quite a few demands on teachers. Their data confirms that not only do teachers need to be
content developers, data acquirers, data researchers, and behavior management
specialists, they also need to be proficient with technology (Hammonds, Matherson,
Wilson, & Wright, 2013). In order to evaluate their skills, teachers should ask themselves
if they have the following skills: “Have I learned how to teach in a 21st-century
classroom, using interactive whiteboards, digital storytelling, social networking sites,
blogs, and tweets for instructional purposes?” Chorzempa (2011, p.74).
Darling, Osei-Yaw, and Sheehy (2015), use reports from survey studies and data
from prior studies conducted by others to conclude that instructors in K-12, higher
education, and corporations need to be at the forefront of technology if they wish for their
students to be there also. The two main studies Darling et al. looked at were the Study of
the Impact of Technology in Primary Schools (STEPS) and data derived from the survey
that ICT in Education that was commissioned by the European Commission Directorate
General Communications Networks, Content and Technology to implement. STEPS
surveyed primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary level education teachers from
31 countries across the EU28, Iceland, Norway, and Turkey. Darling et al, states that
because technology is what is and will be used in corporations of the present and future, it
should be a focus for education. They state, however, that currently, corporations cannot
rely on what technology education is provided in K-12 or higher education. Darling et al.
suggest that it is up to the business to train and educate their employees on the technology
needs of their particular company. How people learn must also be taken into
consideration when developing their training (Darling, Osei-Yaw & Sheehy, 2015).
Teacher efficacy and preparation programs. In an older study, Moore-Hayes (2011)
conducte a quantitative, descriptive study looking at the relationship between teacher
efficacy and technology integration. Even though it is older, the information about
teacher efficacy is still relative and important to technlogy integration success.
Moore-Hayes gives 350 pre-service and in-service teachers a survey using a six-point
Likert scale. The survey also includes an open-ended question. The final results were
based upon a response rate of 48%. Moore-Hayes found that teachers will use all aspects
of technology in their teaching the more they believe they have the skills to do it
(MooreHayes, 2011). Teacher efficacy, or the belief in their personal skills, will make a
difference in their use of technology in the classroom. This efficacy can be nurtured and
built. Teachers need to believe they can use technology properly in the classroom before
they use it. Moore-Hayes concluded that the more experience pre-service teachers have
with technology, the more they will use it.
Lopez and Juste (2009) conducted a study of pre-service teachers in Spain,
analyzing their command of competencies for using technology and how their university
training affected these. Lopez and Juste’s sample consists of two groups of 106 students
enrolled in the first-year education department Curriculum Design course. The study
results were derived from field notebook notes, semi-structured interviews and a survey.
The survey consists of two types of questions; 5 point Likert scale questions and
openended questions. The interview questions were based on the survey answers to
generate a more in-depth understanding of the students' perceptions. In their study, Lopez
and Juste found that when prepared at the university level, pre-service teachers were
happy, felt better about their technological competencies, and had higher motivation. The
increased efficacy was because the pre-service teachers could see the connection between
their future classrooms lessons and the use of the technology (Lopez & Juste, 2009). They
could understand the cohesive nature of the integration(Lopez and Juste, 2009).
How comfortable teachers feel with technology, will make a difference on their use of
technology in the classroom (Henriksen, Mehta, & Rosenberg, 2019). Teachers need to
feel comfortable with the technology before they will use it. Henriksen et al. conduct a
study examining teachers confidence with technology. The 74 teachers were participating
in a hybrid technology professional development workshop over the course of a school
year. The teachers were given a pre and post survey asking them about their confidence
level and use of the technology. Henriksen et al. were concurrently examining a specific
type of professional development workshop format. In regards to confidence levels, the
researchers found that teachers who were more likely to use technology in their
classroom, the more confident they were with it themselves. Henriksen et al. also found
that teachers became more confident with technology, the more they used it in their
workshops in an activity rather than in seclusion. Teachers will use technology the more
they become confident in it, which comes with using it in context of classroom activities
(Henriksen, Mehta, and Rosenberg 2019).
Foulger, Graziano, Schmidt-Crawford, and Slykhuis, (2017) did a study asking
the question; what knowledge, skills, and attitudes did pre-service teachers need to
succeed with technology. They report that teacher preparation programs currently only
require one semester of a technology-focused course for pre-service teachers (Foulger,
Graziano, Schmidt-Crawford, & Slykhuis, 2017). The researchers did a study through
crowdsourcing of technology-related literature, a Delphi method for expert feedback, and
an open call for public comments. Through these, Foulger et al. develope 12
competencies of technology education for pre-service teachers or TETCs (Teacher
Educator Technology Competencies). They also conclude that all pre-service teachers
should have a required, planned, and continuous level of technology training in all of
their university classes. The use of technology should be prevalent and integrated through
all university classes, not just in one or two semester classes (Foulger, Graziano,
Schmidt-Crawford, & Slykhuis, 2017) The importance of pre-service teacher training in
technology is not only seen by districts but also by the department of education which are
now using these competencies (Foulger, Graziano, Schmidt-Crawford, and Slykhuis,
2017). They also conclude that these TETCs can be developed in current teachers through
professional development workshops.
In education, ICT (Information and Communication Technology) is having a
strong impact. With the development of new technologies, teachers are being asked to use
technologies they have not been trained to use (Simsek & Sarsar, 2019). Teacher’s use of
these technologies plays an important role in the success of the investments districts have
made in technology. Simsek and Sarsar examine teachers' views on the competencies of
technology integration in education in the context of TPACK-ISTE selfefficacy. The
study included 387 secondary and high school teachers from 26 schools, including 15
secondary schools and 11 high schools with the cluster sampling method.
The study uses descriptive survey, causal comparison, and correlational survey models.
One result that Simsek & Sarsar found was that female teachers' self-efficacy in
technology knowledge was lower than male teachers. The male teachers, in regards to
technology issues and problems, rated themselves higher. With nine in 10
elementaryschool educators being women, and six in 10 secondary educators being
women, this is an important issue (Wong, 2019). Simsek & Sarsar also found that
teachers that receive inservice training and support use ICT more in the classroom than
those teachers that did not receive training and support.
Celik and Yesilyurt (2013) were interested in how different efficacy and attitude
factors can affect how teachers use technology. They developed eight hypotheses to test
the relationship of these variables: attitude to technology, perceived computer
selfefficacy, computer anxiety, and the attitude toward adopting computer supported
education. Celik and Yesilyurt developed a relational survey model to present to the
teacher candidates in their study. The sample was 471 pre-service teachers attending two
universities in Turkey. Celik and Yesilyurt discover that attitude towards technology has
a significant and positive effect on the participants perceived self-efficacy, anxiety
towards computers and in turn, their technology-supported education. They also conclude
that computer anxiety, technology attitudes, and perceived computer self-efficacy
together substantially impact the teachers’ attitude toward creating computer-supported
learning. Indeed, Celik and Yesilyurt felt the most significant result of this study was that
these three factors together were important predictors and unrecognized variables of
computer-supported education. The researchers conclude that computer anxiety,
technology attitudes, and perceived computer self-efficacy collectively impact the quality
of computer-supported education (Celik & Yesilyurt, 2013).
Cuhadar (2018) was interested in finding out how prepared pre-service teachers
were in using technology, and what was their exposure to technology use in their college
education. Cuhadar uses a survey model to ask 832 senior pre-service teachers, from four
universities in Turkey, specific questions about their comfort level of integrating
technology in their future lessons and their perceived level of preparedness for these
lessons. Six hundred nine of the sample were female and 223 were male, all from various
teacher education majors. Cuhadar concludes that pre-service teacher do not feel they
receive suitable support and training in technology integration. One of the areas found to
be significant in this study was that of the university professors being role-models in the
use of technology. The integration of technology was not being modeled in their college
classrooms except for when they had a technology assignment. One recommendation
made by Cuhadar was that the universities need to re-think their technology education for
pre-service teachers and until that is done the PD will now be the responsibility of the
hiring school systems.
Research shows that technology integration needs to be integrated into all aspects
of pre-service teachers' class experiences and not as a set of skills separate from
classroom applications (Foulger, Buss, Wetzel, Lindsey, & Pasquel, 2015). Foulger et al.
worked with Arizona State University, the largest teacher credentialing institution in the
United States, to examine whether their pre-service teachers are prepared for integrating
technology in their future classrooms. Data was collected through an open-ended survey
and transcription of the audio of a discussion among three program specialists. The
questionnaire was sent to 29 site coordinators and they had a 100% response rate. Foulger
et al. found that during their student teaching, the pre-service teachers tried to use the
technology but were limited due to access and availability. The pre-service teachers also
use the technology mostly for information gathering or content reinforcement. These
results are similar to what was found in studies done for current classroom teachers.
Foulger et al. conclude that more research needs to be done on why teachers are not using
the technology for integration and that it needs to be used in all pre-service classes. By
seeing it and using it in all their classes demonstrates integration.
Gudak (2019) conducted a study comparing candidate teachers efficacy in
technology with their attitudes towards digital technology. Gudak gave a correlational
survey to 102 undergraduate music teacher candidates. The study found that there was a
correlation between the candidates teachers self-efficay and their attitude towards digital
technology. The higher the candidate teachers self-efficacy in technology, the higher their
attitude of digital technology use in the classroom. This was echoed in a study conducted
by Ozdamil (2017) who used a mixed-methods study to find the attitudes of candidate
teachers towards future technology use in the classroom. Ozdamil surveyed 275 candidate
special education teachers at Near East University. The study found a correlation between
the candidate teachers’ attitude in their use of technology with their attitude for future use
in their classroom.
Though the study is older, it is important to remember what Chorzempa (2011)
notes; there is an important need for all teachers to take control of their technology
education needs after they graduate. Instead of looking at individual teacher efficacy, one
study looks at the social construct of an entire school toward technology use. Indeed, one
of the barriers to technology integration can be the social construct of the school and how
teachers feel in this social construct (Li & Choi, 2013). The relationship teachers have
with each other, administration, and others in their school is an important piece of
technology integration. Li and Choi surveyed 1076 teachers from a convenience sample
of 130 schools in Hong Kong. The survey contains 30 questions with a 4-point Likert
scale. The scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) assessing
teachers’ viewpoints on technology integration in their schools. Li and Choi found that
social capital of a school can impact the changes necessary for technology integration in
teacher’s lessons. They conclude that the social capital of a school can affect the way
teachers think and feel about technology integration and the effectiveness of professional
development. They posited that the social capital of a school can determine whether a
technological shift will happen in the teaching of individual teachers (Li & Choi, 2013).
Social capital could be construed as collective teachers’ beliefs. Technology
integration has been studied in relation to teachers’ beliefs by Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector
and DeMeester (2013), who conducted a mixed-methods, exploratory study. Their goal
was to discover how teacher beliefs about the essence of knowledge and learning,
practices in teaching, and technology integration were all connected. The researchers use
the framework of a 4-year professional development project that was working with rural
teachers in the southeast United States to improve their technology integration practices.
The participants were picked from a pool of 42 teachers that had attended the 4-year
professional development. Out of the 42 teachers, 22 were selected based on what they
had taught in class during the project and they had participated in at least two of the four
years of the project. The data was collected using questionnaires, teacher interviews, and
classroom observations. Kim et al. (2013) concludes that teacher beliefs about the essence
of knowledge and learning, practices in teaching, and technology integration were all
connected. To promote technology integration, teacher’s beliefs should be taken into
consideration (Kim, Kim, Lee, Spector & DeMeester, 2013).
Support and Professional Development for Teachers
Districts should provide professional development to help teachers as soon as they
are hired and for the entire time they are employed to make sure that the teachers are up
to date and advancing in technology skills as fast as the students. Smerdon, Cronen,
Lanahan, Anderson, Iannotti, and Angeles, (2000) compiled a research report for the
National Center for Education Statistics on teacher’s use of technology. The data for this
report came from three main data sources; The Fast Response Survey System (FRSS),
The Current Population Survey (CPS), and the National Association of Educational
Progress (NAEP). Smerdon et al. found that technical assistance provided by the district
is significant in the use of technology by teachers. They recommend having a districtlevel
coach or coordinator to work with the teachers on integration of technology into their
lessons (Smerdon, Cronen, Lanahan, Anderson, Iannotti, & Angeles, 2000). Though this
is an older study, the recommendations are still relevant to this study and the success of
technology integration in schools.
Renbarger and Davis (2019) conducted a multiple regression study looking into
why new teachers are leaving the profession. This study utilizes the Teaching and
Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013 data created by the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Though this was an international
study, Renbarger and Davis uses the information from the United States teachers. The
researchers also use the information from teachers that were in the profession less than 5
years, resulting in a sample of 226 participants. The researchers focus on the impact that
barriers to professional development, self-efficacy, and mentoring have on new teachers
leaving. Renbarger and Davis found a positive correlation between new teachers’
selfefficacy, mentoring, and teachers staying in the profession. The researchers also found
that there was a negative correlation between barriers to professional development and
the new teachers staying in the profession. When barriers were not addressed and new
teachers were not able to have the professional development they needed or wanted they
felt unsupported (Renbarger and Davis, 2019). The conclusion was that mentoring was
seen as a great support to the new teachers and that addressing the barriers to professional
development such as time, availability, and cost would make an impact on keeping new
teachers (Renbarger and Davis 2019).
According to Singhavi and Basargekar (2019) teachers use and their acceptance
of technology are a pivotal part of the success of technology integration in the classroom.
They conducted a study looking into the barriers of this use and acceptance of technology
in the classroom. The study uses logistic regression analysis to identify how the
willingness to use technology in the classroom can be improved if certain barriers were
removed. Singhavi and Basargekar created a questionnaire based on their literature
review and sent it out to 515 randomly selected teachers in the greater Mumbai area. The
teachers represent grades 5 through 10. The results led the researchers to conclude that
many of the technology implementation barriers were outside in nature; insufficient
Internet bandwidth, insufficient Internet connected computers, and insufficient software
for education. Singhavi and Basargekar also found that internal barriers such as;
inadequate skills of the teacher, lack of pedagogical models, inadequate time for the
teachers, and lack of flexibility in implementing technology were also barriers. Once
these barriers were removed, teachers were more willing to implement technology in their
classrooms. Singhavi and Basargekar recommend that to improve technology use in the
classroom, school districts should provide training opportunities and encourage teacher
participation in these trainings.
Receiving the necessary support is important for technology integration in the
classroom. Tondeur, vanBraak, Siddiq, and Scherer (2016) surveyed 688 pre-service
teachers in their last year of school in Flanders, Belgium. The researchers wanted to
develop a survey instrument to determine perceptions of the scope of their training and
support in integrating technology into their classrooms. The participants completed a
selfreporting survey consisting of 24 statements that they rated on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree.) Using the data from the survey,
Tondeur et al. developed a scale that can be used to measure effective methods for
preparing preservice teachers for technology integration in their classrooms. They also
conclude that scales and questionnaires are an important method in determining the needs
and effectiveness of training.
Archer, Savage, Sanghera-Sidhu, Wood, Gottardo, and Chen (2014) examine past
studies that investigates technology in education and its effectiveness. The researchers
focused on four prior reviews that had been accepted by the scientific community. Out of
the original four reviews, one was removed due to missing statistical information the
researchers needed for their review. The three subsequent reviews included 38 studies
that included computer-based information and communication technologies. Archer et al.
discussed the importance of two key instructional points for positive implementation:
training and support for the instructors and attention to the fidelity of the technology
program. Archer et al. found that the studies reflected the need for continued training and
support for instructors implementing the technology. This training and support without
the monitoring of fidelity will impede success. Monitoring fidelity and training and
support must all be present for optimal results (Archer, Savage, Sanghera-Sidhu, Wood,
Gottardo & Chen 2014).
Integration of technology is defined as technology used in teaching and in support
of student learning with the ultimate goal of using technology to transform teaching and
learning (Peeraer, and Van Petegem, 2012). Professional development may increase
teacher knowledge base of best practices, and change the way they plan, assess, and
present their lessons with the integration of technology (Ertmer and Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010). Spencer and Smullen (2014) conducted a review of research studies and the
impact that technology had on education. Spencer and Smullen argues that teachers may
need to be careful with integrating technology. Spencer and Smullen suggests that
teachers consider the benefits of including technology in their lessons. Spencer and
Smullens’ findings suggest to them that in order to have intentional use of technology,
teachers may need to come to understand what it means to integrate technology into the
lesson rather than just change a lesson plan to include technology. Smullen and Spencer
discuss that by changing how you integrate technology in to your lesson plans will also
change your philosophy on the integration. One study that Smullen and Spencer cite is by
Honan (2012) who guided a small qualitative study on literacy and the teachers’
understanding of students’ digital use at home. Honan interviews four teachers who
taught grade 7 in Australia. Honan felt that if teachers could understand the student’s use
of digital literacy at home, they could see how it would transfer to the classroom. Honan
concludes that teachers and districts need to change and re-think the way teaching is done
currently compared to what it could be using digital literacies.
Teacher’s input on their wants and needs of technology is very important. Matuk,
Gerard, Lim-Breitbart, and Linn (2016) uses a design case study in which the researchers
and the participants collaborate to design the best possible instruction. They intentionally
want to review how teachers engage in co-design with the researchers, and how it
enhances the technology refinements. This five-year study uses design artifacts,
reflections, interviews and observations from 5 yearly 3-4 day WISE workshops. Each
workshop includes 10-24 middle and high school science teachers. After every workshop
Matuk et al. would conference and go over all of their individual observations and
interviews to come to a group consensus. Matuk et al. conclude that is important to good
technology design to take into consideration teachers’ ideas, educational experiences, and
classroom needs. Teachers need to have a voice in what their technology is and how it
works. Matuk et al. summarize that it is important for all parties involved in educational
technologies to create an environment of learning and engagement for all. By listening to
the teachers needs and valuing their expertise, this can be accomplished.
Younger students are being exposed to educational technology and research
suggests that teachers need to move past using the technology for strictly administrative
tasks and move towards integrating technology into the learning process (McCannon &
Crews, 2000). In an older study, McCannon and Crews conducted a quantitative study
looking at the technology training needs of elementary teachers. The researchers wanted
to look at the access the teachers had to technology, how technology was used, and any
training the teachers were exposed to. Due to an influx of funds, the state was buying a
considerable amount of computers but training was not very well funded. The researchers
sent out 250 surveys to a random sample of elementary teachers, with 127 surveys being
returned for a response rate of 50.8%. McCannon and Crews found that 98% of the
surveyed teachers had computers in their rooms. They concluded that teachers had the
technology and did not have a problem using it for administrative tasks, such as grading,
making worksheets, or finding information, but they did not use it as a tool for student
learning. The teachers were not using technology in curriculum integration or
presentation enhancement (McCannon & Crews, 2000). McCannon and Crews conclude
that teachers indicated that they would like more training on integration practices both at
the hardware and software levels. McCannon and Crews discuss that integrating
technology into the curriculum as part of the teacher’s daily use and as a part of lessons
takes educational technology to the next level for student learning. Though this is an
older study the reasons for teachers not integrating technology, though they have access,
is still relevant today.
Technology Needs and Barriers
The barriers to technology use can be theorized, but Rich, Belikov, Yoshikawa,
and Perkins (2018) asked teachers and researched what these barriers are. Rich et al.
conducted their study in the second year of a multi-year district implementation of a new
technology initiative. The teachers received the technology, professional development
workshops, and in-classroom coaching throughout the implementation process. At the
end of the second year, the researchers interviewed 17 teachers that had participated in
both the first and second year of implementation. After the interviews, Rich et al. coded
and organized the responses. The researchers found three main inhibitors: time, changes
in the training, and lack of a shared vision, time being the major barrier. The teachers
they interviewed mentioned that if it is not on the state test, they do not have time to earn,
plan, and implement the technology. Subjects the students were tested on had the
teachers' priority (Rich, Belikov, Yoshikawa, and Perkins, 2018).
The drive towards technology integration in the profession is strong but the
teachers’ level of expertise in using and integrating technology is quite diverse (O’Reilly,
2016). Through an in-depth analyses of different needs assessments used throughout the
country and at different educational levels, O’Reilly compiled a list of eight common
indicators frequently used in technology needs assessments. These indicators include:
self-assessed skill level, technology use and integration, teacher beliefs, barriers to access
to technology, professional development resources, leadership, needs and wants, and
demographics. O’Reilly concludes that with the influx of technology in schools and the
varying levels of teacher competencies needs assessments are a vital data tool. Districts
planning for technology integration would benefit from including needs assessments in
their overall plan.
One research study looked at the barriers to technology use and found several.
Pittman and Gaines (2015) conducted a quantitative research study delving into the use of
technology in third, fourth, and fifth grade classrooms. The survey was sent to 218 third,
fourth, and fifth grade teachers from 47 pubic school in Florida. Seventy-five surveys
were deemed eligible for a response rate of 34%. The researchers found that limited
access to technology in the classroom was a problem, even though the school buildings
had computers. Schools have increased the number of computers, but just having a
computer lab in the building does not make it easier for integration (Pittman & Gaines,
2015). Another barrier was that the professional development offered was not what was
needed. The teachers indicated that the amount of PD was sufficient, but the usefulness of
the PD was the barrier. The teachers could not use the PD effectively in their classrooms
(Pittman & Gaines, 2015). Pittman and Gaines conclude that more individually tailored
professional development, or mentoring opportunities, would be valuable in increasing
technology integration in the classrooms.
Teacher attitude can be a limitation to technology use and integration. This
attitude is what Luo and Murray (2018) wanted to investigate. They did a study that
investigated teachers’ attitudes towards online learning and their middle schools 1:1
laptop policy. Luo and Murray wanted to know the teachers’ perspective on the initiative
and what were some of the problems they saw in the classroom. The researchers’
conducted a qualitative study consisting of a transcendental phenomenological approach.
Luo and Murray interviewed, surveyed, and observed five teachers from grades 5-8 and
two faculty administrators. The teachers in this study were overall very positive with the
1:1 implementation. They were able to see the benefits to the students and their learning.
The teachers did feel that technology used all day and in non-structured ways could be
detrimental to the students, taking into account their age and inability to always make
good choices (Luo and Murray, 2018). Luo and Murray concludes that teachers feeling
towards technology also has an impact on the level of integration and use.
Shin (2015) conducted a study on the integration and use of technology in the
classroom. Shin wanted to discover what factors influence teachers’ use of technology.
The study includes a convenience sampling of 31 elementary schools with approximately
20 teachers in each school. Six hundred fifty-nine teachers completed surveys and were
included in the study. The surveys included five open-ended questions, which each then
had close-ended questions. Shin found that many of the teachers in the study use
technology in their classroom and saw a benefit to using it but did not use it effectively.
The teachers use it as a presentation tool such as copying their board notes to a
PowerPoint; the only difference was that the notes were on the screen rather than the
board (Shin, 2015). Shin concludes that teachers want to use and understand the benefits
of technology in the classroom. Teachers would like more administrative and school
support in the implementation of technology through professional development and
coaching (Shin, 2015).
Critical Summary of Literature
The primary strength of the review is that throughout the range of articles, there
were none that show professional development was a negative influence on teacher
integration of technology. Indeed, many of the studies teachers put forth that regular PD
would help them integrate technology in to their classrooms (An & Reigluth, 2011;
Gavis, 2012, Hur, Shannon & Wolf, 2016; Kopcha, 2012; Moore-Hayes, 2011;
Wilkerson, Andrews, Shaban, Laina and Gravel, 2016; Tondeur, et al., 2012; Watson,
2006). The basic finding that professional development that is focused and frequent will
increase technology integration was found in many strong studies (An and Reigluth,
2011; Gavis, 2012; Hur, Shannon and Wolf, 2016; Kopcha, 2012; Matuk, Gerard,
LimBreitbart and Linn, 2016; Smerdon, 2000). In fact, there were very few weak studies
in this review. The various manners in which the studies in the review were strong is
discussed next.
Many of the studies were very strong in that they use both qualitative interviews
and quantitative surveys in their studies, thus bringing the strengths of both
methodologies to the research. Variation is crucial in surveys because surveys can
provide a breadth of a broader range of participants’ responses while interviews provide a
depth of understanding the reasons and examples underlying participants’ responses. For
example, Kopcha (2012) uses both surveys of the participants and interview for deeper
understanding. Another way to increase the validity of a study is to sample a larger
number of the population of interest. For example, An and Reigeluth (2011) and
MooreHayes (2011) both show strength in their sample sizes, which were 126, with 10.2
average experience level and 350 respectively. Keengwe, Schnellert, and Mills, (2012)
was strong in that it includes the students’ perspectives on how the use of technology
affect their learning in addition to the the teacher’s perspective of their own integration
and how it affects learning.
There were a few weaknesses found in the studies in this review. For example,
Hammond et al. (2009) and Howard, Chan, Mozejko and Caputi (2015) were both
longitudinal studies that lost participants throughout the year which weakened their
ability to represent the full nature of the changes over time. The primary weakness of the
review was due to the timing. Recent articles within the last five years are required for the
purposes of this dissertation. Unfortunately, many general technology use surveys studies
were completed at the beginning of the technology boom in education over ten years ago.
In contrast, recent studies focus on a specific type of technology, such as iPads or a
specific genre of use, such as writing or math. As such, this review could have included
many more studies surveying general use of technology if they were more recent.
Overall, very few studies were found to have significant weaknesses.
Implications
When teachers believe that what they are doing is right for their students, they will
embrace it. Russell, Bebell, O'Dwyer, and O’Connor, (2003) note that as teachers
experience their own effective use of technology, that change their beliefs that technology
would make a difference. Russell, et al. concludes that this change in belief can be
accomplished through exposure to and training in the use of technology. The more
comfortable a teacher becomes with technology, the more a teacher will integrate and see
its value to the students. As Turel (2014) found, teachers’ belief in their ability to use
technology affects how often they will use technology in their classroom. The goal of the
PD is to help teachers use technology well enough that they feel comfortable enough to
use it more often.
One choice that could have been taken for this study would be an evaluation
report. The survey did not evaluate a current process or practice, so this was not an
option. Another choice might have been a curriculum plan. This would be an option if I
was working with a specific content area or technology. This survey is looking for a
broad view of access, use, and desire for professional development. The curriculum plan
would be an aspect that could be investigated as the coaches bring out different
professional development workshops. The project might take the form the researcher
working with the technology coach to develop a focused professional development. We
would design a focused, specific three-day professional development opportunity for the
teachers and staff of the district. Technology is not transformative on its own. Evidence
indicates that when used effectively, student technology use can expand their critical
thinking by creating an environment of learning that is based in collaboration and
involves real-life problem solving (Means et al., 1993). Instead of focusing on isolated,
skills-based uses of technology, schools should promote the use of various technologies
for sophisticated problem-solving and information retrieving purposes (Means & Olson,
1995). To fully integrate technology into the classroom, teachers need to be prepared and
become digitally literate. The technology coach can take the information from the survey
and develop the professional development.
The large implication of this study is that teachers get the PD they want, become
more technologically capable teachers, and use technology more often. The direction of
this study will be in the form of a policy recommendation. This will have the data
generated by this project, presented to the Board of Education and Superintendent in the
form of a presentation. I will present my findings in a report and PowerPoint delivered at
a board meeting. The findings will include visual tables and graphs presenting the
information for all to understand. Depending on the data, new policies for professional
development in the district could be developed. The information and data will also be
shared with teachers and other stakeholders through smaller presentations at staff
meetings or school quality meetings.
Summary
Section one begins with presenting the problem in the district, which is the lack of
data on what currently accessible technology and technology learning activities (TLAs)
teachers use, have access to, and want for what activities they professional development
(PD). The gap in practice is that the Technology Coordinators are unable to currently plan
relevant PD because they do not have information on what technology teachers in the
district have access to, use, and desire PD for, which would in turn increase their use of
the technology. Collecting this information is the purpose of this study. The significance
of the study was stated as enabling the technology coordinators to provide wanted PD that
ultimately increases the use of technology and may even increase the integration of
technology. The above sections of the literature review have reviewed the need for
technology, teacher preparation, teacher efficacy, and teacher support. This information
supports the use of this survey study to collect information that may provide teachers with
the technology PD they want and could increase their technology use. The common
theme throughout the literature review was the importance of PD for increasing
technology use and technology integration. In Section 2, I describe the methodology of
the study, including the research design, the participants, the data collection, and the data
analysis methods.
Section 2: The Methodology
Introduction
The research design of this study is a descriptive and correlational quantitative
survey. The research design of a study is the map that will help take a study from the vast
expanse of ideas to a more precise sense of data retrieval and analysis (Creswell, 2009).
Three types of research design that I explore for this study were qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods. Qualitative models have a more inductive approach or derive their
analyses from themes developed from the data. Quantitative models are more of a
deductive approach, with relationships being found among variables. The mixed-methods
approach combines both the qualitative and quantitative design. The design choice is
reliant upon the scheme of the problem, the researcher’s background, and the people that
would benefit from the study (Creswell, 2009).
Research Design and Approach
The design of my study is a quantitative survey study. I chose a quantitative
approach because I wanted to gain insight into the technology use and desires of teachers,
in regard to technology, throughout the district. Part of the reason for choosing a
quantitative study was due to a large number of teachers in the district a survey was ideal.
There were other reasons including the existence of partial surveys from the
needsassessment research of previous years. There was also a need to develop additional
questions to update these needs-assessments to include more modern educational
technology concerns such as TLAs. A quantitative study is also more statistically
powerful with a larger sample. My study will examine the relationship between the
technology available to teachers in their school buildings and the teachers’ knowledge
and use of this technology.
I did not choose to address the problem using a qualitative approach. I rejected a
qualitative study because it would likely involve lengthy interviews and document
analyses that would decrease the participant pool to far fewer people than a survey. I did
not use a qualitative study because it would be difficult to interview a large number of the
district teachers. The large number of teachers and diversity of the sample in terms of
grade level and content area would make it difficult to find a representative sample. The
research questions are, and data needed, is quantitative as opposed to qualitative. This
study will use a quantitative survey to gain a numerical evaluation of the technology
access, use, and training desires to make decisions for individual school buildings and the
PD to increase technology use. The data needed is specific to how many times teachers
use technology, the level of access, and numerical desire for PD. The data collected in a
qualitative study would be looking more at why or how teachers feel about technology.
Thus, this quantitative survey design is ideal.
Setting and Sample
The research district in this study is an urban, mid-sized city in the Midwest
section of the United States. According to the district’s website (At A Glance, 2013), the
district meets the needs of over 7,623 students in 20 schools, including 11 elementary
schools, two middle schools, and three high schools. As the 2013 state school data
dashboard states, 83% of the district is economically disadvantaged or at-risk. According
to High-Schools.com, 74% of the district’s students receive free or reduced lunch in
2013. The district is currently experiencing financial problems due to families physically
moving out of the city or choosing to educate their children elsewhere.
The population for this study was all classroom teachers in grades K–12 in the
district estimated at approximately 300 (January 2, 2018). The population includes
approximately 84 elementary teachers, 60 middle school teachers, 25 special education
teachers, 75 high school teachers, and 56 specialty teachers.
The sample size was determined based on the population of all the classroom
teachers, approximately 300 teachers. A power analysis was conducted in G-POWER
using an alpha of 0.05, a power of 0.80, and a medium effect size (ρ = 0.3) for a twotailed
t-test. This means that the significance will have to be above 95%, the power rating was a
.80 at a medium effect size level and both the upper and lower tails were considered
because the correlation could go either way, in other words, there is no a prior
assumptions about the correlations. Because Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is
computationally identical to Pearson product-moment coefficient, a power analysis was
conducted using software for estimating the power of a Pearson’s correlation. According
to G-Power, the required sample size was determined to be 82 of the 300 potential
respondents. These numbers need a 27% response rate and a 10% response rate is typical
for educational research (Walden professor, personal communication, April 2017). The
first time the survey was sent out it did not receive enough participants to reach the
needed 82 respondents. I then resubmitted to the IRB to send out the survey again. It was
approved and I sent it out a second time. The second round of the survey did bring up the
number of respondents to a number that was acceptable. It was expected that there would
have been considerable interest in this survey as teachers are very eager to participate in
technology PD and the district is determined to improve their technological situation.
Protection of human subjects. Prior to sending out the survey, district approval
from the superintendent and technology coordinators was obtained. Then the Walden
Institutional Review Board (IRB) was given the letters, the application, and the survey
materials for their approval. I was careful to make sure that all procedures were done
ethically in order to protect the participants. Once IRB approval was granted, potential
participants were contacted to volunteer in the study.
An initial invitation was sent to all teachers in the district a week prior to the
distribution of the survey. This message gave the teachers a chance to know what is
coming and gather their thoughts. The emails contained the informed consent letter.
Teachers clicked on the link to the survey in the informed consent letter and were
redirected to Survey Monkey. They were alerted inside of the survey that their
completion of the survey indicated their consent to participate. An online consent and
information form were provided to each participant. The information form explained the
study, the reasons for the study, information about myself, and the participants’ rights of
participation. The teachers chose whether they wanted to participate or not. No data was
collected about which teachers did or did not take part. All precautions were used to
protect participants’ rights and privacy. The survey was completely anonymous to protect
the participants’ rights.
The study does collect grade level and specific school information, but the data
analysis does not combine grade level and school in such a way that might lead to an
identification of individuals. The raw data is contained in tables prepared by the
researcher, located on a stick drive. The frequency of teachers in each school is noted but
does not disclose identities. The raw data are all anonymous and will not be shared with
the district and will only be seen by the researcher and possibly by her advising
professors.
Instrumentation and Materials
The study is designed as a non-experimental, quantitative survey research. The
survey (Appendix B) is a combination of published surveys and items that I wrote to
address the specific needs of the district. For example, I modified the technology list for
the question: Do you have access to this technology in your building? The list is located
in Figure 1. The survey instrument is adapted from an earlier research study “First-year
Teachers’ Use of Technology: Preparation, Expectations, and Realities” conducted by
Strudler, McKinney, Jones, and Quinn (1999). Permission to use this survey is located in
Appendix E. The current survey has 100 items for the teachers to assess. Section 1 has
eighteen items, section 2 has thirty-nine items, and section 3 has thirty-eight items. The
questions from the published survey and the questions I wrote use a 5 point Likert-type
scale. The scale ranges from 0 for none to 5 for very much. The activities questions were
designed to learn how the teachers are actually using the technology and how technology
is being used.
Figure 1. Example of survey questions.
Establishing Survey Validity and Reliability
For the entire survey, face validity and content validity estimates were calculated
by using expert analysis. The experts were educational technology professionals within
this district: the school district’s Technology Coordinator and four of the district’s
sitebased Technology Coaches. These experts are former teachers that have advanced
degrees in technology integration. They have also participated in training in coaching and
professional development for adult learners. The sample size for the face and content
validity estimates were a total of five technology experts chosen for their expertise, which
is necessary for construct and face validity. These validity measures do not require high
numbers of respondents but rather high levels expertise. The results are explained in the
upcoming paragraphs.
Before survey administration, the experts were requested to provide a face validity
evaluation of the survey. First, the experts complete the survey as if they were the teacher
participants. Second, at the end of each section of the survey, the experts assign a 1-5
rating for how valid the section is for collecting data from teachers. Third, at the end of
each section there was a narrative open response box for the experts to write any
qualitative assessment of the face validity of the survey.
Once I had all the replies, I did a cursory viewing of each of them. I then began to
look for patterns in the surveys and review; what statements were similar, what questions
did the experts agree or disagree on, and the experts’ overall idea of the survey. They
were all in agreement that the survey was a good idea for our district. Nothing to this
extent had been done and they all felt it would be helpful for future planning. Expert A
and C did not rate each survey question but gave a written response. They both felt the
questions were relevant and only had minor suggestions so neither one felt the need to
rate each question. They sent me short paragraphs with their information changes. Four
out of five experts felt that question one about access did not need the
“desire for professional development” component. I agreed and took that out, leaving just
the rating for access. Two of the experts suggested putting together the Google and
Microsoft components. This was not changed due to the inherent differences between
Microsoft and Google. Google allows the teachers to interact with the students’
documents, whereas the Microsoft Office Suite our district uses does not. The
components were also kept separate within their platforms. It was felt that teachers may
use Word/Docs differently than they use Publisher/Slides or Excel/Sheets. Individual
professional development on each of these components was felt to be important. Two of
the experts suggested adding Illuminate, a testing platform newly introduced by the
district. This was added due to its importance to the teachers and district mandates. After
the initial review, two more experts verbally brought forth their suggestions for
Illuminate.
Expert E suggested taking out the questions about the SMART Slate. Expert E
stated that only one school in the district had this technology and they had ordered it on
their own. This was not a districtwide technology, so many of the teachers would not
know what it was or have access to it. No other expert recommended this, but it was
taken out. Asking teachers about a technology that the district did not provide to all
teachers is not what the study is looking for.
To evaluate the content validity of the survey, the experts then took the survey for
a second time. They rated on a 1-5 scale, how useful each item was for determining what
the professional development needs are of the teachers. This 1-5 scale had 1 as not a
useful item, and 5 as a most useful item for determining technology in which teachers
would like professional development. The average rating for each item and each section
was calculated to provide the concurrent validity information as to whether each item is
useful for determining teachers’ technology use and needs. I then considered omitting or
altering items from the survey. Any of the least valuable items with a mean rating of 1 or
2 were considered for the omission without replacement. Tables were created, grouping
experts’ average ratings of the items. This preliminary testing with the experts helped
create a valid survey.
Reliability estimate were calculated using Cronbach’s alpha for the experts’
responses in the first administration where they answered questions as if they were
teachers. Cronbach’s alpha compares how individuals’ scores on the same items
correspond to one another. The high number of items and the scale of 1-5 increase the
likelihood that the estimate of reliability will be more trustworthy. Thus Cronbach’s alpha
was also calculated for the larger sample of participating teachers taking the survey.
Cronbach's alphas for the 6 questions was .621. Though this is a low number it is still in
the acceptable range. The survey was found to be reliable.
Analysis
Data analysis methods started with discussion and explanation of the response
rate. According to G-Power, the required sample size was determined to be 82 of the 300
potential respondents. These numbers need a 27% response rate and a 10% response rate
is typical for educational research (Walden professor, personal communication, April
2017).The survey had 87 respondents.
The results of the survey are reported using univariate analysis. For each research
question, descriptive statistics are reported in tables. For each question, a measure of
central tendencies, including the mean, range, and standard deviation are in the tables and
discussed in the text. These descriptive statistics describe the basic features and serve as a
summary of the data. Descriptive statistics viewed, along with graphs and tables, are the
basis of many quantitative analyses of data sets (Trochman, 2006). The descriptive
statistics include disaggregation by grade level and buildings. It is impactful to know
which buildings use technology more or have a higher knowledge of engagement
activities concerning technology. These buildings will be looked at by the district to find
out what is working. Conversely, the buildings with small use and/or low efficacy could
be considered to decide what changes could be made to better utilize the technology.
As each research question’s descriptive data is noted, the strength and direction of
the two hypothesized correlations will be reported. The two correlation hypotheses
investigate if current technology PD has increased technology use and if there is any
correlation between building and desire for PD to guide efforts.
Once the participants had completed the survey, I reviewed the preliminary data
on Survey Monkey looking for initial trends or disparities. Reviewing the data gave me a
chance to just see the overall picture and look for anything particular that stood out. The
one thing I found was that not many people wanted PD. The data from Survey Monkey
was then downloaded to Excel. Each respondent was given a coded number by the survey
collection software to maintain anonymity. Each respondent’s data was listed across the
Excel document, with each of their scale ratings listed for each question. I organized the
data in Excel by research question and survey question. I then calculated the mean,
median, and mode of each survey question. I organized the individual survey questions
answers by percentages. That data was then put into tables.
Inferential Statistics include the correlations that are used in this study, and are
used to provide information beyond the descriptive statistics, providing a powerful tool
for quantitative data analyses. To find the answer to the two research questions with
hypothesis, all the data was exported from the survey collection software to an Excel
document. The mean of each respondents’ use of technology on the itemized list was
calculated. The mean data was then organized by the hours of technology professional
development and building shown for each respondent. A correlation test was then run to
look for any significant positive correlations between technology use and prior
technology PD workshops or current school building. Correlations are relationships
between variables. These relationships can be positive or negative. A negative correlation
r < 0 corresponds with a statistically negative relationship between variables. A positive
correlation r > 0 corresponds with a statistically positive relationship between variables.
A zero-correlation r = 0 corresponds with no relationship between variables (Statistical
Correlations, 2009). Other inferential statistics were discussed, such as, t tests, ANOVA,
and linear regression but these were not appropriate for this study.
Assumptions, Limitations, Scope and Delimitations
I assumed that this research study was not be able to capture all of the potential
PD needs that would increase the teachers’ technology use. The survey contains both
common uses and TLAs but these are only a small representation of all that is possible.
The study also assumes that teachers answer to the best of their abilities and honestly
regarding their current use and their desire for PD.
This study is limited by the number of participants that took the time to answer to
the survey. Collecting the information from all the teachers would be ideal, but this is not
possible in a research study that depends on voluntary participation. This study was also
limited to the geographic region and type of school district: a poor urban district with
significant challenges.
Results
Introduction
This section will discuss the results of the survey. The survey was sent out to help
solve the problem of the lack of data on what currently accessible technology and
technology learning activities (TLAs) teachers use, have access to, and for what activities
they want professional development (PD) in the specific district. The survey was
developed to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. How accessible is each technology tool?
RQ 2. How much do teachers use each technology tool?
RQ 3: How much do teachers want PD for each technology tool?
RQ 4: How much do teachers use each TLA?
RQ 5: How much do teachers want PD for each TLA?
RQ6: Is there a significant positive correlation between teachers’ overall use of
technology and their hours of technology professional development?
H6o: There is no significant positive correlation between teachers’ use of
technology and their hours of technology professional development.
H6a: There is a significant positive correlation between the teachers’ use of
technology and their hours of technology professional development.
RQ 7: Is there a significant positive correlation between teachers’ overall desire for PD
and their building?
H7o: There is no significant positive correlation between teachers’ desire for PD
and their building.
H7a: There is a significant positive correlation between the teachers’ desire for
PD and their building.
RQ8: For each building and grade level, what are the instructional tools that teachers
give the 4.0 or higher mean ratings for desiring PD?
RQ 9: For each building and grade level, what are the TLAs that teachers give 4.0 or
higher mean ratings for desiring PD?
Respondents
The survey was sent out to all the teachers in the district. The teachers had two
weeks to complete the survey. At the end of two weeks, there were only 53 completed
surveys. According to G-Power, the required sample size was determined to be 82 of the
300 potential respondents. Fifty-Three respondents did not meet the G-Power for the
required sample size. Due to this low number, the IRB was contacted for permission to
send out the survey one more time. Once permission from the IRB was given the survey
was sent out to the teachers again. At the end of two weeks, 87 teachers responded. This
number met the needed number of respondents. As illustrated in Table 1 below, out of
those 87 respondents the highest number of respondents was from the category of
multigrade level with 13 respondents. There were 11, 3rd grade teachers and 11, 5th grade
teachers. There were 8, 1st grade respondents, and 7, 4th grade respondents. Kindergarten,
8th grade, and 11th grade each had 6 respondents. Pre-kindergarten had 5 respondents, 2nd
grade had 4 respondents, and 7th grade had 3 respondents. The grade levels of 6th and 9th
each had 2 respondents. The least number of respondents was for the 12th grade level with
1 respondent.
Table 1
Grade Level Number of Participants
Preschool 5
Kindergarten 6
1st 8
2nd 4
3rd 11
4th 7
5th 11
6th 2
Number of Respondents per Grade
7th 3
8th 6
9th 2
10th 2
11th 6
12th 1
Other 13
Totals N = 87
Research Question Number 1: How accessible is each technology tool?
This question was rated by participants on a 5 point Likert scale, with 5 being
easily accessible and 0 being completely inaccessible. As seen in Table 2, 11
technologies were rated as easily accessible. Google Drive (docs, sheets etc), Skyward
and its components (Attendance, Grades, Discipline), Document camera; Microsoft
Office and its components (Word, Excel, PPPT, Publisher), Laptop/Chromebook carts for
whole class use and the LCD Projector were all easily accessible with 70-88% of
participants rating them a 5. There were 16-42% of the participants that rated the
accessibility of the following at a 5: SMART Interactive Whiteboard, Online connections
resources that came with textbooks, Smart Notebook (Software on computer),
Tests/quizzes resources that came with textbooks, Computer Lab in, school DVD's
resources that came with textbooks, and PowerPoint/Presentation resources that came
with textbooks had. Moviemaker and PolyCom Video Conferencing station were found to
be the most inaccessible with between 60-84% of the participants rating these as a 0 or
inaccessible. The research question was regarding what technology are accessible. The
analysis illustrated in the table above revealed that all the technology is accessible to the
teachers with the exception of the Poly-Com hardware and Moviemaker software.
Table 2
Accessibility Ratings of each Technology Tools
Technology Ratings
0 1 2 3 4 5
Google Drive (docs, sheets etc) Skyward
and its components
0.00% 0.00% 1.18% 3.53% 8.24% 87.06%
(Attendance, Grades, Discipline) 1.16% 1.16% 1.16% 4.65% 10.47% 81.40%
Document camera
Microsoft Office and its components
4.82% 1.20% 1.20% 6.02% 7.23% 79.52%
(Word, Excel, PPPT, Publisher)
Laptop/Chromebook carts for whole
1.18% 0.00% 2.35% 9.41% 14.12% 72.94%
class use 3.53% 3.53% 2.35% 10.59% 8.24% 71.76%
LCD Projector 9.52% 2.38% 2.38% 4.76% 10.71% 70.24%
SMART Interactive Whiteboard
Online connections resources that came
11.76% 3.53% 4.71% 11.76% 16.47% 51.76%
with textbooks
Smart Notebook (Software on
12.79% 2.33% 10.47% 11.63% 20.93% 41.86%
computer)
Tests/quizzes resources that came with
19.05% 2.38% 4.76% 15.48% 20.24% 38.10%
textbooks 10.84% 1.20% 10.84% 19.28% 19.28% 38.55%
Computer Lab in school
DVD's resources that came with
21.43% 4.76% 8.33% 10.71% 20.24% 34.52%
textbooks
PowerPoint/Presentation resources that
24.69% 0.00% 11.11% 23.46% 11.11% 29.63%
came with textbooks
Interactive whiteboard resources that
27.16% 7.41% 8.64% 20.99% 6.17% 29.63%
came with textbooks 34.15% 7.32% 9.76% 21.95% 10.98% 15.85%
Moviemaker 53.09% 8.64% 6.17% 17.28% 4.94% 9.88%
PolyCom Video Conferencing station
SMART or other Response System
60.00% 16.25% 8.75% 8.75% 0.00% 6.25%
(Clickers) 0.00% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33%
Totals N=87 respondents
Research Question Number 2: How much do teachers use each technology tool?
This survey answers for this question were based on a 5 point Likert scale
spanning from 0 never use to 5 which is using all aspects deeply. As seen in Table 3,
there were several items not used by more than 70% of the teachers. These technologies
include Google Classroom basic Blogs/Wikis, Student to student communication: Publish
student work on a Web page, Communication with parents: Class Web page, IEP (Easy
IEP), Student to student communication: Creating instructional materials to share, and
Smart Exchange (Online resource for teachers). There were several items used by 4050%
of the teachers including: Student inquiry: Web Quests, Video Streaming:
Brainpop/Brainpop Jr., Google classroom Posting Homework assignments, Smart
Notebook (Software on computer), Google Classroom website Links page, Google
Classroom Quiz/Tests, and Google Classroom Calendar.
About 50% of the teachers rated themselves using the following at a frequency
level of 3 or higher: Skyward Record keeping: Grades/Discipline/Attendance, Preparation
for instruction lesson and unit planning: Finding information, Preparation for instruction,
Downloading materials ie: videos or pictures, Creating instructional materials:
Worksheets, Communication with parents: Newsletters, Communication with parents:
Email, and Google Classroom Site. According to the data the teachers are using
technology that is mainly focused on record-keeping and lesson planning uses of
technology. The analysis revealed that teachers were using the technology tools but in the
capacity of record-keeping and lesson planning. This data shows that the teachers are
using the tools for creating lessons and using the tools for the students. The teachers are
using the technology to add to the textbook lessons and communicate with parents in a
digital format. Students are benefitting from the teachers' use of videos and adding
information to the lessons from the Internet.
Table 03 continued
Table 03
Technology Tool Use of Classroom Teachers
Technology Tool Rating of Use
Skyward Record keeping:
0 1 2 3
(Avr.)
4 5
(Use
All)
(No
use)
Grades/Discipline/Attendance
Preparation for instruction lesson and unit
5.81% 0.00% 3.49% 18.60% 22.09% 50.00%
planning : Finding information
Preparation for instruction Downloading materials
3.49% 4.65% 3.49% 31.40% 26.74% 30.23%
ie: videos or pictures 3.49% 5.81% 9.30% 32.56% 23.26% 25.58%
Creating instructional materials: Worksheets 12.79% 2.33% 6.98% 37.21% 19.77% 20.93%
Communication with parents: Newsletters 33.33% 6.90% 2.30% 29.89% 8.05% 19.54%
Communication with parents: E-mail 13.79% 13.79% 11.49% 34.48% 8.05% 18.39%
Google Classroom Site 35.63% 4.60% 5.75% 16.09% 21.84% 16.09%
Communication with parents: Attendance 31.40% 12.79% 11.63% 24.42% 6.98% 12.79%
IEP (Easy IEP)
Classroom management and/or incentives for
72.94% 4.71% 0.00% 4.71% 4.71% 12.94%
students Reward for completed work
Teacher-student communications: Google Docs for
36.05% 5.81% 6.98% 27.91% 12.79% 10.47%
revisions 43.68% 5.75% 13.79% 21.84% 6.90% 8.05%
Creating instructional materials: Readings 25.58% 10.47% 12.79% 33.72% 9.30% 8.14%
Other Online practice
Teacher-student communications: Teacher Posting
18.60% 6.98% 8.14% 44.19% 13.95% 8.14%
schedules/due dates
Core curriculum skills development Drill and
practice (Such as Math Blaster, Reader Rabbit,
48.28% 8.05% 11.49% 14.94% 10.34% 6.90%
Starfall etc.) 27.91% 6.98% 5.81% 38.37% 13.95% 6.98%
Video Streaming: Discovery Education 26.74% 12.79% 13.95% 23.26% 16.28% 6.98%
Video Streaming: You Tube 6.98% 5.81% 12.79% 40.70% 26.74% 6.98%
Video Streaming: Brainpop/Brainpop Jr. 59.30% 10.47% 8.14% 9.30% 5.81% 6.98%
Google Classroom website Links page 53.49% 5.81% 10.47% 15.12% 9.30% 5.81%
Student inquiry: Student research using Internet 19.77% 11.63% 13.95% 36.05% 12.79% 5.81%
Google Classroom Calendar 50.57% 12.64% 9.20% 18.39% 4.60% 4.60%
Google classroom Posting Homework assignments 56.32% 1.15% 6.90% 14.94% 16.09% 4.60%
Video Streaming: Teacher Tube 47.67% 10.47% 9.30% 19.77% 8.14% 4.65%
Communication with parents: Class Web page
Teacher-student communications:Teacher Creating
78.16% 5.75% 5.75% 4.60% 2.30% 3.45%
Posters/signs 44.83% 6.90% 5.75% 31.03% 8.05% 3.45%
Google Classroom Quiz/Tests 50.57% 6.90% 9.20% 16.09% 13.79% 3.45%
Illuminate 21.18% 16.47% 23.53% 29.41% 5.88% 3.53%
Technology Tool
Rating of Use
0 1 2
(No
use)
3 4 (Avr.)
5
(Use
All)
Smart Notebook
Teacher-student communications: Online response
55.81% 13.95% 12.79% 11.63% 3.49% 2.33
%
to written work
Student to student communication: Creating
40.23% 5.75% 13.79% 22.99% 16.09% 1.15
%
instructional materials to share 70.59% 12.94% 5.88% 7.06% 2.35% 1.18
%
Student inquiry: Web Quests 67.44% 10.47% 5.81% 12.79% 2.33% 1.16
%
Google Classroom basic Blogs/Wikis 83.91% 5.75% 6.90% 3.45% 0.00% 0.00
%
Smart Exchange (Online resource for teachers)
Student to student communication: Publish student
69.77% 6.98% 11.63% 8.14% 3.49% 0.00
%
work on a Web page 84.71% 7.06% 4.71% 3.53% 0.00% 0.00
%
Research Question Number 3: How much do teachers want PD for each technology
tool?
This question asks the teachers to rate their desire for professional development on
a 5 point Likert Scale: 0 being no professional development desired, to having a great
desire for professional development being rated a 5. As seen in Table 4, only two
technology tools had 50% or more of the teachers rate the tool a 3 or higher for desired
PD. The tools are Communication with parents: Class Web page and Illuminate. Google
Classroom site had 43% of the teachers rate their desire at a 3 or higher. Except for the
tool Google Classroom Site, over 40% of the teachers rated the desire for professional
development on the other technology tools as a 0. These overall low numbers are
surprising and reflect that only a small number of teachers want technology professional
development on most of these tools. It is important to address the needs of the teachers
that desire professional development, even though it is a small number overall. The
analysis revealed that the answer to the research question is that teachers do want specific
PD workshops in the areas of Communication with parents: Class Web page and
Illuminate and Google Classroom.
Table 04
Teachers Desire for Professional Development in Specific Technology Tools
Technology Tool Desire for Professional
Development
0 1 2 3 4 5
Communication with
parents: Class Web page 41.89% 10.81% 8.11% 12.16% 4.05% 22.97%
Illuminate 32.39% 11.27% 8.45% 18.31% 9.86% 19.72%
Smart Exchange (Online
resource for teachers) 41.67% 8.33% 6.94% 13.89% 12.50% 16.67%
Google Classroom Site 35.14% 10.81% 10.81% 18.92% 10.81% 13.51%
Google Classroom website
Links page
Teacher-student
50.70% 2.82% 9.86% 15.49% 7.04% 14.08%
communications:Teacher
Creating Posters/signs
52.70% 4.05% 13.51% 13.51% 4.05% 12.16%
Google Classroom
Calendar 42.25% 4.23% 12.68% 14.08% 14.08% 12.68%
Smart Notebook (Software
on computer)
Classroom management
52.86% 5.71% 11.43% 15.71% 2.86% 11.43%
and/or incentives for
students Reward for
completed work
Student to student
54.29% 5.71% 5.71% 12.86% 11.43% 10.00%
communication: Creating 54.41% 8.82% 8.82% 11.76% 5.88% 10.29%
instructional materials to
share
Student inquiry: Student
research using Internet 47.83% 5.80% 8.70% 20.29% 7.25% 10.14%
Video Streaming: Teacher
Tube 46.38% 15.94% 10.14% 11.59% 5.80% 10.14%
Google classroom Posting
Homework assignments
Preparation for instruction
57.75% 8.45% 9.86% 14.08% 1.41% 8.45%
Downloading materials ie:
videos or pictures
52.24% 8.96% 5.97% 16.42% 7.46% 8.96%
Creating instructional 52.17% 4.35% 11.59% 15.94% 7.25% 8.70%
materials: Readings
Technology Tool Desire for Professional
Development
0 1 2 3 4 5
Student inquiry: Web Quests
44.12%
5.88%
10.29%
11.76%
19.12%
8.82%
Video Streaming: Discovery
Education
Teacher-student
47.83% 11.59% 10.14% 10.14% 11.59% 8.70%
communications: Teacher
Posting schedules/due dates
59.15% 9.86% 11.27% 8.45% 4.23% 7.04%
Google Classroom basic
Blogs/Wikis 51.43% 5.71% 11.43% 14.29% 10.00% 7.14%
Google Classroom Quiz/Tests 43.66% 5.63% 14.08% 22.54% 7.04% 7.04%
Other Online practice 47.06% 11.76% 5.88% 20.59% 7.35% 7.35%
Communication with parents: E-
mail
Teacher-student
70.83% 11.11% 5.56% 2.78% 4.17% 5.56%
communications: Online
response to written work
Teacher-student
47.89% 11.27% 9.86% 19.72% 5.63% 5.63%
communications: Google
Docs for revisions
Preparation for instruction
49.30% 7.04% 15.49% 15.49% 7.04% 5.63%
lesson and unit planning :
Finding information
53.62% 5.80% 5.80% 23.19% 5.80% 5.80%
Student to student
communication: Publish student
work on a Web page
54.41% 5.88% 2.94% 16.18% 14.71% 5.88%
Core curriculum skills
development Drill and
practice (Such as Math
Blaster, Reader Rabbit,
Starfall etc.)
52.94% 8.82% 7.35% 16.18% 8.82% 5.88%
Video Streaming:
Brainpop/Brainpop Jr. 59.42% 10.14% 10.14% 8.70% 5.80% 5.80%
Table 04 continued
Desire for Professional
Technology Tool
Development
0 1 2 3
4
5
Communication with parents:
Newsletters
67.12% 6.85% 5.48% 10.96% 5.48% 4.11%
Skyward Record keeping:
Grades/Discipline/Attendance 52.86% 14.29% 7.14% 14.29% 7.14% 4.29%
Communication with parents:
Attendance 74.65% 7.04% 2.82% 8.45% 4.23% 2.82%
IEP (Easy IEP) 76.47% 2.94% 2.94% 11.76% 2.94% 2.94%
Creating instructional
materials: Worksheets 51.43% 4.29% 10.00% 21.43% 10.00% 2.86%
Video Streaming: You Tube 58.82% 7.35% 13.24% 13.24% 5.88% 1.47%
Research Question Number 4: How much do teachers use each TLA?
This question was rated by participants on a 5 point Likert scale, with 5 being using all
aspects deeply in the classroom and 0 being not used at all in regular classroom practice.
Table 5 shows the listed TLA’s and the percentage of respondents that rated these a 0 or
used not all in regular classroom practice. The TLA section indicated that very few
teachers are using technology with the students. Using technology with the students
means having the students interact with the technology themselves such as; students
working on the Internet finding their information or students working in cooperative
groups putting together a presentation on what they are learning or any other student use
of technology. A large percentage of participants report that they were not using student
expression software such as student-made videos (82.5%) or are not having students
make Prezi or Powerpoints (95%). Many of the teachers are also not using student to
student communication (83%, or any creation software (80%). Research has shown
(Howard & Mozejko, 2015) that teachers do not use technology for many reasons
including lack of efficacy in their abilities, the belief that change is not embraced by the
district, and that this initiative shall pass. These TLAs are not used by teachers. Out of the
thirty-eight listed TLA’s in the survey, twenty-four of TLAs are not used at all in regular
classroom practice. Only 1 TLA, Tests/quizzes using student resources that came with
textbooks, was rated by 50% of the teachers as a 3 or higher on the Likert Scale.
Twentyfour out of thirty-eight TLAs being used means that the teachers are currently
only using 37% of the listed TLAs in the survey. The analysis revealed that the answer to
the research question is that teachers use TLAs in the classroom in limited ways chiefly
for tests and quizzes. Twenty-four of the 38 listed TLAs are not being used by teachers.
Table 05
teachers
Technology Percentage of teacher's not Tool using TLA
Prezi Presentation: Filed Trip Review with
pictures 95.35
TLA s Not Used by
Video Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): other classes in
district
Video Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): Classes outside the
95.29
district 95.24
Video Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): Virtual Field Trips Video
Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): Conferencing with experts in their
92.94
field 91.76
Microsoft Publisher: Student made newspapers
Microsoft Publisher: Student made
91.76
books
Prezi Presentation: Student use to show step by step math problem-solving
91.76
techniques
Google Slides: Student use to show step by step math problem-solving
89.53
techniques 89.41
Microsoft PowerPoint: Student use to show step by step math problem-solving
techniques 87.06
Microsoft PowerPoint: Field trip review with pictures and comments
Google Slides: Field Trip review with pictures and
85.88
comments 85.71
Microsoft Excel: Student made spreadsheets
Student Expression: Hyperstudio, Moviemaker,
84.71
Prezi
Student to Student Communication: E-group
82.56
projects 83.53
Google Sheets: Student made spreadsheets 83.53
Google Sheets: Student made graphs 81.18
Google Docs: Student creating newspapers or newsletters with pics
Microsoft Excel: Students making
80.00
graphs 79.76
Microsoft Word: Student revision tracking and comments
Microsoft Word: Students creating newspapers or newsletters with
78.57
pictures 76.47
Microsoft Publisher: Student made brochures
Microsoft Publisher: Basic student assignments
75.29
(posters/signs) 73.81
Microsoft Word: Student to student editing 71.76
Research Question Number 5: How much do teachers want PD for each TLA?
This question had the teachers rate their desire for professional development on a
5 point Likert Scale, 0 being no professional development desired, to having a great
desire for professional development being rated a 5. As seen in Table 6, Video
Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): Virtual Field Trips was the only TLA that more than
50% of the teachers rated a 3 or higher, meaning they had a high desire for PD in that
TLA. The rest of the TLAs were rated, by more than 50% of the teachers, as a 0,1, or 2,
showing a low level of desire for technology professional development in TLAs.
Currently the teachers are only using 34% of the listed TLAs and out of the 63% they do
not use they only want PD workshops for one TLA. The analysis revealed that the answer
to the research question is the desire for PD workshops in TLAs is low. Teachers have a
low desire for PD workshops in TLAs. The one TLA they did have a desire for PD
workshops was virtual field trips with that item rated a 3 or higher by more than 50% of
the teachers
Table 06
Teacher Desire for TLA Professional Development
TLA Desire for Professional Development
0 1 2 3 4 5
Video Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): Virtual Field Trips 31.43% 1.43% 10.00% 17.14% 17.14% 22.86%
SMART board materials Interactive: Whiteboard
student use 42.03% 7.25% 11.59% 15.94% 10.14% 13.04%
Development of basic computer skills: Keyboarding 53.62% 11.59% 2.90% 14.49% 4.35% 13.04%
Video Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): Conferencing
with experts in their field 41.79% 5.97% 17.91% 11.94% 11.94% 10.45%
Student Expression: Hyperstudio, Moviemaker, Prezi 33.33% 4.35% 13.04% 18.84% 20.29% 10.14%
Interactive whiteboard resources: using student resources
that came with textbooks 52.24% 7.46% 7.46% 16.42% 7.46% 8.96%
Google Sheets: Student made spreadsheets 54.55% 3.03% 18.18% 9.09% 6.06% 9.09%
Microsoft Word: Students Creating newspapers or
newsletters with pictures 61.19% 1.49% 7.46% 13.43% 8.96% 7.46%
Google Docs: Student Revision tracking and comments 52.24% 4.48% 14.93% 13.43% 7.46% 7.46%
Google Sheets: Students making graphs 45.45% 1.52% 16.67% 18.18% 10.61% 7.58%
Google Slides: Student use to show step by step math
problem-solving techniques 59.09% 4.55% 7.58% 12.12% 9.09% 7.58%
Video Conferencing (Polycom/Skype):Conferencing
with other classes in district 51.43% 8.57% 5.71% 20.00% 8.57% 5.71%
Development of basic computer skills: Mouse skills 76.47% 7.35% 4.41% 5.88% 0.00% 5.88%
Microsoft Word: Student Revision tracking and
comments 61.19% 5.97% 8.96% 8.96% 8.96% 5.97%
Google Docs: Basic student assignments 53.03% 6.06% 12.12% 12.12% 10.61% 6.06%
Google Slides: Field trip review with pictures and 60.00% 4.62% 13.85% 6.15% 9.23% 6.15%
comments about what was learned.
Prezi Presentation: Student use to show step by step
47.06% 1.47% 16.18% 14.71% 14.71% 5.88%
math problem solving techniques
Video Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): Conferencing
with other classes out of district 45.59% 11.76% 7.35% 20.59% 10.29% 4.41%
PowerPoint: using student resources that came with
textbooks 65.15% 6.06% 9.09% 13.64% 1.52% 4.55%
Online connections using student resources that came
with textbooks 54.55% 10.61% 7.58% 18.18% 4.55% 4.55%
Microsoft Word: Basic student assignments 66.18% 7.35% 10.29% 10.29% 1.47% 4.41%
Microsoft Publisher: Basic Student assignments
(poster/sign) 61.19% 8.96% 5.97% 17.91% 1.49% 4.48%
Microsoft Publisher: Student made brochures 56.72% 5.97% 7.46% 22.39% 2.99% 4.48%
Microsoft Publisher: Student made books to print for
library 60.61% 4.55% 9.09% 16.67% 4.55% 4.55%
Microsoft Publisher: Student made newspaper 62.12% 3.03% 6.06% 15.15% 9.09% 4.55%
Microsoft Excel: Students making graphs 56.06% 1.52% 12.12% 19.70% 6.06% 4.55%
Microsoft Power Point: Student use to show step by step 66.18% 0.00% 10.29% 10.29% 8.82% 4.41%
math problem solving techniques
Google Docs: Student to student editing 46.97% 9.09% 7.58% 19.70% 12.12% 4.55%
Google Docs: Students Creating newspapers or
newsletters with pics. 48.48% 6.06% 10.61% 21.21% 9.09% 4.55%
Microsoft Word: Student to student editing 64.18% 7.46% 8.96% 11.94% 4.48% 2.99%
Microsoft Excel: Student made spreadsheets 60.29% 4.41% 14.71% 13.24% 4.41% 2.94%
Google Slides: Student use for presentations 46.97% 10.61% 10.61% 21.21% 7.58% 3.03%
Student to Student Communication: E-Group Projects 56.72% 7.46% 7.46% 16.42% 8.96% 2.99%
Prezi Presentation: Field trip review with pictures and
comments about what was learned. 54.29% 7.14% 8.57% 10.00% 17.14% 2.86%
Tests/quizzes using student resources that came with
textbooks 57.97% 13.04% 11.59% 10.14% 5.80% 1.45%
DVD's using student resources that came with textbooks 69.23% 7.69% 10.77% 7.69% 3.08% 1.54%
Microsoft Power Point: Student use for presentations 60.29% 5.88% 14.71% 11.76% 5.88% 1.47%
Research Question Number 6: Is there a significant positive correlation between
teachers’ overall use of technology and their hours of technology professional
development?
H6o: There is no significant positive correlation between teachers’ use of
technology and their hours of technology professional development.
H6a: There is a significant positive correlation between the teachers’ use of
technology and their hours of technology professional development.
To find the answer to this question, all the data from the survey was exported from
the survey collection software to an Excel document. Each respondent was given a coded
number by the survey collection software to keep anonymity. For the data analysis
process each respondent’s question data was listed across the Excel document, with each
of their scale ratings listed for each question. Each respondent’s data was listed across the
Excel document, with each of their scale ratings listed for each question. For each item
the participants rated technology use. In order to calculate teachers’ technology use, I
averaged the means across all the items. I organized the mean data for teachers into
number of previous technology PD workshop hours and found mean for teachers in each
time grouping of previous PD workshops. A Pearson bivariate correlation coefficient was
computed using SSPS software. The results are seen in figure 1 below. There was a weak
positive correlation between the two variables, r = .298.
Overall, there was not a strong, positive correlation between use of technology
and the number of previous PD hours.
Table 07
Use of Technology/Number of Previous PD Hours
V433 V434
V433
Pearson Correlation 1
.298**
Sig. (2-tailed) .007
N 87 81
V434
Pearson Correlation
.298**
1
Sig. (2-tailed) .007
N 81 81
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Research Question Number 7: Is there a significant positive correlation between
teachers’ overall desire for PD and their building?
H7o: There is no significant positive correlation between teachers’ desire for PD
and their building.
H7a: There is a significant positive correlation between the teachers’ desire for
PD and their building.
To find the answer to this question, all the data was exported from the survey
collection software to an Excel document. Each respondent was given a coded number by
the survey collection software to keep anonymity. For data analysis purposes each
respondent’s data was listed across the Excel document, with each of their scale ratings
listed for each question. For each item the participants rated their desire for PD
workshops. In order to calculate teachers overall desire for PD workshops I averaged the
means across all the seventy-two items. I organized the mean data for teachers into
buildings and found the building mean for teachers overall desire for PD workshops. A
Pearson bivariate correlation coefficient was computed to assess the relationship between the mean
desire for PD and the school building. There was a weak positive correlation between the two
variables, r = .189. Overall, there was not a strong, positive correlation between a desire for PD and
the school building.
Table 08
School /Desire for Professional Development
Research Question Number 8: For each building and grade level, what are the
instructional tools that teachers give the 4.0 or higher mean ratings for desiring PD?
To find the answer to this question, all the survey data was exported to an Excel
document. I then arranged the data by building. I found the mean of each instructional
tool for that building and then looked for any mean that was 4 or higher. There were no
buildings that had a mean rating of 4.0 concerning their desire for PD in instructional
tools.
Research Question Number 9: For each building and grade level, what are the
TLAs that teachers give 4.0 or higher mean ratings for desiring PD?
To find the answer to this question, I exported all the survey data to an Excel
document. I then arranged the data by building. I found the mean of each TLA for that
building and then looked for any mean that was 4 or higher. Only one building, Building
6, had a mean rating of 4.0 or higher in regards to their desire for PD. Building 6 scored
the Video Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): Virtual Field Trips at a 4. No other buildings
had a 4.0 or higher in their desire for professional development concerning TLA’s.
Summary of Results
The results show that the teachers have access to technology. As reported above
(Table 3), the teachers use the technology for record-keeping with 90.69% of the
respondents rating this category a 3, 4 or 5 with 50% rating this category a 5., lesson
planning 96.37% of the respondents rating this a 3, 4 or 5 and communication with
57.48% of the respondents rating newsletters a 3,4, or 5 and 60.92% of the respondents
rating Emails with parents a 3,4 or 5. Much of the technology is used for the students
rather than with the students. Many teachers are using technology as a tool to achieve a
goal (such as Grades/Discipline/Attendance, Preparation for instruction lesson, finding
information, downloading materials, and creating instructional materials), rather than a
way to deepen their teaching and learning of the student which is the goal of
administrators and education technology professionals (Asiksoy, G. & Ozdamli, F.,
2017). As shown in Tables 2 and 4, the data indicates a very low or below 50% of the
teachers using it, use of technology with the students. The data indicates that most
teachers are using the technology for record-keeping, communication, finding
information on the Internet, and creating worksheets. The only tools that scored over 50%
of the teachers using regularly were Skyward Recordkeeping, Preparation for instruction
lesson and unit planning, Preparation for instruction Downloading materials, Creating
instructional materials, and Communication with parents. These are all teacher
workrelated tasks and not work that engages students with technology.
In regard to TLA’s Table 4 shows the listed TLA’s and the percentage of
respondents that rated these a 0, which means not all in regular classroom practice were
in use. Out of the thirty-eight listed TLA’s in the survey, twenty-four of TLA’s are not
used at all in daily classroom practice. Only one TLA, Tests/quizzes using student
resources that came with textbooks, was rated by 50% of the teachers as a 3 (average
daily use) or higher on the Likert Scale.
For technology tools, the teachers would like PD workshops in Illuminate and
creating class web-pages. Illuminate is for assessment and record-keeping of those
assessments, and web-pages are a communication tool. The teachers use TLA’s but a
very small amount. Teachers have a low desire for PD workshops in TLA’s
predominantly in the area of virtual field trips being the only item rated a 3 or higher by
more than 50% of the teachers
The results of this survey have given the district data on the wants and needs of the
teachers regarding technology PD workshops. As I was analyzing the results it became
clear that there was a greater issue than just giving the appropriate PD and developing a
specific PD workshop. I decided against developing a PD workshop as a project. As I
continued to analyze the data, I realized it was important for the district to have the
results given to them in a white paper. The results did not give a specific direction
regarding what the teachers want for PD workshops but it did give suggestions based on
the data. The district technology coordinators can to take this information and develop a
plan to dig deeper with the teachers to develop a plan that works for everyone.
Section 3: The Project
Introduction
This section will include an overview of the project. The first part of this section will
address description and goals, the rationale, and the literature review concerning this
project. The second part of this section will address the implementation, potential
resources and existing supports, potential barriers, a proposal for implementation and
timetable, and conclude with a description of the roles and responsibilities of participants.
The final part of this section will review the project evaluation and implications for social
change.
The needs of the teachers in regard to technology access, use, and desire for
professional development is the primary focus of this study, position paper, and literature
review. I also review research on professional development in the corporate sphere. In a
commentary piece by Deborah Delisle (2017), she asserts the need for professional
learning for teachers. She cites that businesses spend more than $164 billion a year on
professional development and in turn, they see a higher rate of motivation, productivity,
and engagement. The bottom line is that companies that invest in their employees'
training show a three times profit growth compared to companies that do not invest in
training. This may or may not relate to professional development and student learning.
More than any other school component, teacher effectiveness affects student success
(Delisle, 2017).
Description and Goals
As described in Section 1, the study and project were based in a mid-sized city
that is having difficulty with technology integration. The problem across this district is
the lack of data on what currently accessible technology and technology learning
activities (TLAs) teachers use, have access to, and for what TLAs they want professional
development (PD). This project will provide the district technology staff with information
that will help the staff support teachers to use technology more and to use technology in
the service of learning content objectives. The ultimate goal of this project is to give the
Technology Coaches a starting point for developing authentic, data-driven professional
development workshops to improve technology use according to teachers’ desires.
Rationale
The project developed for this study is a position paper. The results of the study
are based in what technologies the teachers have access to, what they currently use, and
what technologies they desire PD workshops for. The findings indicate that there are
many areas that the teachers do not want PD for, and a few that they do. Video
Conferencing (Polycom/Skype): Virtual Field Trips was the only TLA that more than
50% of the teachers rated a 3 or higher, meaning they had a high desire for PD in that
TLA. The rest of the TLA’s were rated by more than 50% of the teachers as a 0, 1, or 2,
showing a low level of desire for technology professional development in TLA’s. It also
indicates that there are many areas that teachers are not using technology for and
therefore may need support of some kind, even if they do not want PD. Out of the
thirtyeight listed TLA’s in the survey, twenty-four of TLA’s are not in use at all in
regular classroom practice. Only one TLA, Tests/quizzes using student resources that
came with textbooks, was rated by 50% of the teachers as a 3 or higher on the Likert
Scale. Twentyfour out of thirty-eight TLA’s in use means that the teachers are currently
only using 37% of the listed TLA’s in the survey. This information is important for the
administration and district coaches to have in order to develop PD workshops that the
teachers needs and wants to participate in. A position paper was chosen over developing
professional development plan due to the fact that the district coaches are in charge of
planning and providing professional development to the district teachers. My project can
help the coaches develop that plan and PD workshops, but I would not be able to develop
or implement a PD workshop myself. This project gives the coaches an idea of what the
teachers are looking for in their professional development. The position paper will lay out
the results of the technology needs assessment for the coaches and give them a starting
point, from the teachers’ point of view, in regards to technology and PD. According to
Xavier University, a position paper is used to express a position on a subject and garner
support for that position (Xavier.edu, 2014). The position paper will be used to present
the data of this study, to promote a positive social change in the technology professional
development offered in this district. The coaches will take the data and align the
professional development workshops offered with the participants’ desires. White papers
can be specific to types of audiences and help that specific audience solve problems
(Sakamuro, Stolley, and Hyde, 2015). This position paper will be addressed to the district
with the primary audience being the administrators, particularly the technology
administrators. The position paper will be available as an email attachment to all
teachers, but a shorter summary of the results will be shared in the body of the email. The
paper will take into account data on basic accessibility of technology that was reported in
the survey and also the sections of the survey asking teachers what technology
professional development they prefer.
The goal of the project is to help the teachers with their technology use which
hopes to return an increase in student achievement. By giving the district information
about the wants and needs of teachers, the technology coaches can develop PD
workshops and a district technology plan that has the voice of the teachers. The teachers
can become more involved with technology integration, going past using technology for
students, and moving towards using technology with students.
Review of the Literature
Introduction
As stated earlier in this paper, the problem, across this district, is the lack of data
on what currently accessible technology and technology learning activities (TLAs)
teachers use, have access to, and for what TLAs they want professional development
(PD). In the survey used in this project was included questions asking teachers about their
technology access and desire for professional development. Once the position paper is
shared with the district, the technology coaches will develop professional development
sessions for the district teachers. In the earlier literature review, the need for technology
and technology training was discussed. In this literature review, I will discuss the benefits
of professional development sessions, why leadership is essential in professional
development sessions and the different types of professional development sessions used
in the educational setting. In the following section, I will discuss the second part of the
project and its components. These components include potential resources and existing
supports, potential barriers, implementation and timetable, and conclude with roles and
responsibilities. This section will review the literature on several topics, including
organizational success and professional development. I broke down the professional
development section into corporate professional development and teacher professional
development. Corporate professional development was included due to the fact that
school districts, though non-profit, are corporations. The success of the corporation is
dependent on the skills of its employees, similar to the success of education is dependent
on the skills of the teachers. How corporations help develop these needed skills is useful
to how districts can develop the skills of their teachers. These correspond to each of the
sections below in the review.
To conduct the research, for this review, I used Walden Library’s Thoreou data
base and Google Scholar. I was also led to a few articles by my fellow students at Walden
and their discussion posts. One discussion post (December 2017, discussion board post,
EDU 8090) cites articles that were similar to my subject area but looks at it from a
different angle. By looking into these articles, it led me to articles that I would not have
initially looked into before. All the searched articles needed to be within five years and
from peer-reviewed publications. While searching for articles, some of the prominent
search terms I used were: educational professional development, what makes professional
development successful, types of professional development, and increasing professional
capital.
Organizational Success
Dessler (2016) states that organizational procedures are in place to create
employees with the expertise and knowledge needed in their job to reach the goals and
objectives of the company. Dessler defines an organization as people that are working
together in defined roles to achieve the company’s expectations and goals. In this case,
the company is a school district, the employees are teachers, and the goals involve student
success. The position paper will be organized to give the district the data needed to create
the technology resources and professional development suggestions to enable the teachers
to achieve student success. Data is what should propel any changes, new ideas, and
procedures that can be achieved through people (Dessler, 2016). The position paper will
present the data from this study.
Colquitt, LePine, and Wesson (2014) discuss that organizations and how they
work with employees are integral parts of companies’ success or failure. To find success
with their employees/teachers, the district will need to work with the results of this study
that communicate teachers’ current conditions and future desires for technology
professional development. Colquitt states if the organization exhibits its’ commitment to
teachers by responding to their desires in these results, it may be that teachers will be
more committed to their positions. Employee job commitment is tied to organizational
commitment (Colquitt et al., 2014). Colquitt also suggests that commitment to employee
learning is a large factor in the success of a company. This could also be said about
teacher professional development.
Professional development, as defined by Coldwell (2017) is any supports,
informal or formal, created to increase and enhance teachers’ skills. These supports might
include face to face workshops, classes, mentoring, coaching, research, and self-study.
Coldwell studies the effects of professional development on teacher careers and retention.
The mixed-methods study consists of a survey of over 500 teachers and telephone
interviews with 25 of those teachers. The data analysis of the survey shows a statistically
significant number of participants, 57%, indicated that their participation in professional
development made them more likely to stay in teaching. This significance was not found
in the interview data. The data from the interview did show that the teachers indicated
that the professional development sessions increased their knowledge and in turn their
motivation towards teaching. It is important for schools to understand the importance of
planned, teacher-need, and directed professional development when developing a
professional development plan (Coldwell, 2017).
Professional Development
The human capacity of a company is determined by how well the company
supports and educates its employees (Colquitt, LePine, and Wesson, 2014; Dessler, 2016;
MacKay, 2015). The professional development section of this literature review is divided
into corporate professional development and teacher professional development.
Professional development is one focus of this study, position paper, and literature review.
The survey in this project study askes teachers about their use of technology and how
much they desire professional development workshops on specific technology and TLAs.
In the literature review in Section One of this paper, the need for technology was
discussed, and now in this literature view section, professional development will be
discussed.
Corporate professional development. MacKay (2015) did a study of Human
Resource managers and their understandings of the impact of professional development
on human capital and in turn the advantage to companies. The study is divided into two
parts. The first set of data includes 25 human resource directors’ summary statements
about their qualifications and education. The second set of data came from a sub-sample
of 27 employees involved in development activities. The participants were broken into
small discussion groups of four to five people. Those participants were asked a series of
guiding questions about their development activities and how they felt. For example, one
question was, “how do you see your learning development?” Another question was: “in
what way are these learning experiences useful for current job activity and future career”
(MacKay, 2015)? The preliminary data was coded and then broken down into eight
categories. These overlying sub-groups were then put together into three primary groups.
MacKay felt that her data indicates that professional development has more influence
beyond just increasing immediate employee capital. Her findings indicate that
professional development increases individual motivation, self-efficacy, and productivity.
Those in turn have a positive influence on resilience and motivation to increase one’s
own personal knowledge base (MacKay, 2015). This suggests that professional
development may have these additional benefits for participating teachers in this local
school district.
Professional development sessions increase teacher confidence, which in turn
generates professional capital (Nolan & Molla, 2016). This increase in professional
capital is a benefit to the district and the students. Nolan and Molla conducted a
qualitative study looking into the relationship between teacher confidence and teacher
learning with a focus on mentoring. Mentoring as PD was found to be successful if done
with fidelity and with the role of the mentor, as a teacher, is clearly defined (Peiser,
Ambrose, Burke, & Davenport, 2018). The researchers use three different instruments to
gather data from 296 participants. The participants were 221 mentees and 82 mentors.
The participants were given a pre-mentoring evaluation and a post mentoring evaluation.
The participants were also asked to fill out a statement of purpose explaining their
reasoning for taking part in the mentoring program. Applying inductive analysis and
thematic coding, Nolan and Molla read and coded the data. The data reveales that
participation in the mentoring program creates a positive impact on teacher’s confidence.
This increase in confidence impacts their acquisition of skills and knowledge (Noland &
Molla, 2016). The mentees report that with this increase in skills and knowledge came
application of these new skills into their teaching. Nolan and Molla state that, “Teacher
confidence is vital for effective teaching and improved student learning.” This
confidence comes through sustained teacher professional development sessions that are
collaborative in nature.
Teacher professional development. For teachers to be considered professionals,
it is necessary for them to participate in professional development throughout their
teaching career (Van der Klink, Koola, Avissar, White & Sakata, 2017). Van der Klink et
al. (2017) investigated if teachers from different countries had similar ideas about
professional development activities and developmental goals. The researchers focus on
experienced teachers in 10 different countries throughout Asia and Europe. Controlled
interviews of 25 teachers were conducted by 14 members of a professional teaching
organization. The Netherlands and Israel interviews were conducted by 3 members. There
were a few country specific activities that were found, but a majority of the professional
development activities were similar. Van der Klink et al. (2017) conclude that teachers
internationally found professional development to be an important aspect of their job. The
researchers also found that a majority of the experienced teachers appreciated
professional development that attended to their needs and choices.
Professional development of working teachers is very important since they do not
always come out of their Universities with all the skills and knowledge needed. Williams
(2017) was concerned with just this when she did her study. Williams was interested in
whether new teachers felt they received adequate technology training in their pre-service
programs. A qualitative study was conducted in a school district that had new teachers
that participated in the Digital Opportunity Trust [DOT] TeachUp! USA Program.
Williams asks the participants to fill out a survey and then participate in interviews at
their respective schools. Through the study, it was found that the new teachers felt that
their universities gave them the necessary technological skills but not necessarily the
application skills needed for implementation (Williams, 2016). The participants also felt
that the professional development sessions they received from their school district was
just as important. The professional development sessions received from their school
district helped them in the specific technologies and curriculum the district is using
(Williams, 2016). It is important for districts to provide professional development that is
specific to their unique needs and logistics.
The divide between the technologies students have available in their classrooms
has shrunk, but now there is a divide between the types and amount of professional
development that teachers in different districts are receiving (Herold, 2017). Many
schools have the technology but not the resources to train their teachers in how to
integrate it effectively. Herold states that “teacher already in the workforce, professional
development hasn’t kept up with the pace of technological change.” The technology that
is designed for student use is coming into classrooms faster than teachers can be trained.
This is especially true for the schools with limited budgets. The districts can buy the
technology, but cannot afford the training. Herold mentions that the most ingenious
schools stand out because of what they do with the technology they have. The successful
districts thoroughly encompass their teachers with training and support throughout the
year. (Herold, 2017).
Success of Professional Development
This paper reflects the need for and specific implementation of professional
development. The question is whether this will help teachers. Rutz, Condon, Iverson,
Manduca, and Willett (2012) .The following section will discuss the second part of the
project and its components. These components include potential resources and existing
supports, potential barriers, implementation and timetable, and conclude with roles and
responsibilities.
Implementation
A needs assessment survey was done asking the teachers what technology they
had access to, what technology they used, and what PD workshops they desired. The
results of this survey led to the development of the project or position white paper. The
following section will discuss the second part of the project and its components. These
components include potential resources and existing supports, potential barriers,
implementation and timetable, and conclude with roles and responsibilities.
Potential Resources and Existing Supports
There are a few good potential resources and existing supports for this project.
One big resource is the support of the district and its administration. The current district
administration and technology coaches have been very supportive of the project. Due to
curriculum changes and potential administrative changes the district is changing. The
board of education understands that things need to change in the process of how
professional development workshops are planned. When casually discussing the basis of
the study a board member mentioned: “It is a great idea to get teacher input since what
we are doing doesn’t seem to be producing results” (Board Member, personal
communication 1/16/18). Another board member added that maybe they should do a
needs study for all professional development and subject areas (Board Member, personal
communication 1/16/18).
Another potential resource is the technology coaches and their willingness to
make needed changes in their delivery of technology professional development.
Currently, the technology professional development workshops are offered in the summer and
decided on by what the coaches feel are important. The professional development workshops need
to be consistent throughout the school year and not just once or twice in the summer. The coaches
will need to follow through after training and offer their time in the classrooms to help teachers
apply what they have learned at the PD workshops. The technology coaches are eager to deliver
professional development sessions that are authentic and wanted by the teachers. They are willing
to take the information gathered in this project and apply it to their planning. Planning professional
development sessions that give the teachers what they want rather than what the coaches think the
teachers want is a positive step. The coaches are also a great support for this project. They are
trained with the district technology and curriculum supports. The coaches all have a technology
background but first and foremost they were teachers in the district. They understand not only the
technology but also the curriculum. This will be a great asset in working with district teachers.
Potential Barriers
Many potential barriers could exist in the implementation of this position paper
and the desired results from it. One major barrier is the fact that the district lost the
Superintendent that was a part of this project in 2018, the current Superintendent is new
and is not familiar with the study and project. This is considered a barrier due to the fact
that the project was started with the help of the current Superintendent. The timeline for
the project could be impacted if the new Superintendent is not ready to move forward
with the project. Another potential barrier is the technology coaches. Due to the change in
Superintendent, there is a potential change in the coaches. The coaches have been given
their notice and will not know until the new school year if they will be hired back in their
current positions. Once again, this creates a potential barrier since the project was started
with the current coaches. Another potential barrier is a change in the procedures of
professional development sessions. With a new Superintendent comes potential changes
in current policies and procedures
Proposal for Implementation and Timetable
The implementation process for the project’s white paper will be done in three
steps. The first step in the timeline will be a presentation to the Superintendent and
Technology Coach for the district. The next step in the timeline is a presentation to the
Board of Education. The final step of the implementation timeline is sharing the white
paper with the district teachers through the district website and an email notification with
a link to the website. The district currently is in a transition period from the former
Superintendent to a new interim Superintendent. Through discussions, he asks that the
white paper be discussed and presented to him tentatively pending my graduation in
March of 2019 so that he has a chance to familiarize himself with the district and the
departments. The presentation of the white paper will be made to the interim
Superintendent and the Technology coach at the same time in December 2019. Once the
project is presented to the interim Superintendent and the technology coach arrangements
will be made to set a time to meet with the Board of Education. The Board of Education
meets on the second Thursday of every month. The arrangements will be made to attend
and present at the January 2020 board meeting. Once the results are disseminated to the
Board of Education, they will be uploaded to the district website for the teachers to read.
I will be available, through e-mail, for any teachers that might have questions about the
results.
Roles and Responsibilities
The major role and responsibility will be on myself as the researcher. Once we
analyze the data and the proposal paper developed by the researcher, it will be important
to convey the information to the district administration and technology coaches. I will
have to plan with the district when to formally present the information. The process will
start with a private meeting with the Superintendent. At the end of this meeting, we will
plan how he/she would like me to present to the coaches and the teachers of the district.
The coaches will then take the information in the proposal paper to develop professional
development sessions. The professional development sessions will be the responsibility
of the coaches to plan and implement. The data will be shared with the teachers through
the district website and hopefully, with the professional development plans the coaches
set forth.
Project Evaluation
This project’s evaluation will be twofold. The first part of the evaluation will be a
short quantitative question sheet given to participants in the first two steps of
implementation. The superintendent, technology coach, and board members will each be
asked to fill out a short four question survey at the end of the presentation. The survey
will ask a) Did you feel the presentation was informative, b) Was the information useful
for planning, c) Do you see a need for change in how technology professional
development is delivered in this district? d) If yes on question 3, what changes would you
implement in how future technology professional development is developed? The results
would give a quick test of whether the information given in the project was productive.
The second part of the evaluation is more abstract and time-oriented. It would be asking
and assessing if technology professional development change is needed in the district in
comparison to how it was offered in the past. The district will need to ask if the
technology PD workshops of the past are how they want to continue. The district would
investigate other ways of doing PD workshops and determine if there is a better way for
our teachers.
Implications Including Social Change
Local Community
As stated in section one, the problem across this district is the lack of data on what
currently accessible technology and technology learning activities (TLAs) teachers use,
have access to, and for what activities they want professional development (PD). This
needs-assessment will provide the district technology staff with information that will help
the staff support teachers to use technology more and to use technology in the service of
learning content objectives. The change that this project will bring at a local level is an
awareness. An awareness of what technology the teachers feel they have access to, what
technology they are using in their classrooms, and what activities the teachers would like
professional development for. This professional development can be in the form of
workshops, coaching by peer or technology coach, or on-line instruction. Through the
teachers becoming more adept at technology, this will impact the students in a positive
manner.
Far-Reaching
Initially, this project study will be beneficial to my district, but through talking to
other local districts teachers during local conferences, they have mentioned their interest
in the results. “If the survey works out for you, I would like to bring it to my district. Our
teachers need a voice” (teacher, personal conversation, November 2017). The other
districts in our area are having the same financial issues and have reached out to
potentially have mutual professional developments. This would give all districts a chance
to pool their resources, bring in outside trainers, and create richer professional
development opportunities. The local Intermediate School District (ISD) holds a summer
technology conference that would be an ideal place to present the results of this study to
the other districts and to share the survey for their use. They could pool their results with
ours and the county could have very specific focused technology professional
development workshops.
In a broader context, this needs assessment can be used in other districts across the
country. I will put in proposals for speaking at different technology conferences within
my state and others to present the process of the survey and how it changed the direction
of our technology professional development workshops. Technology is worldwide and
the need for it in education is not just in this district. Professional development is
necessary across the United States and teachers are asking for authentic help. As
Matherson and Windle (2017) found, teachers want professional development that is
relevant, practical, teacher-driven, and sustained over time.
Conclusion
Section 3 outlined the proposed project garnered from the results in Section 2. A
white paper project was decided on and will be presented to the district and stakeholders.
The findings that consistent with the research were the teachers' use of technology tools
for the student or for clerical record-keeping. The additional results of the survey were
the teachers' limited use of TLAs and their lack of desire for professional development.
The results of the survey can best be disseminated to the district and stakeholders through
a white paper. The paper will give the results in a concise format giving the district
technology coaches a place to start in planning future professional development
workshops for the teachers. Section 3 began with a description of the project that
included goals and a rationale for the project. This section also contained a literature
review of professional development types and rationale for the use of professional
development as a teaching tool for technology education of teachers. The last part of this
section includes a timetable and implementation plan, resources, existing supports, and
the roles and responsibilities of all involved. This section concludes with a project
evaluation plan and implications for social change at a local and broader level. Section 4
will include my reflections of the study, the project, and how and what I, as a scholar,
learned from this experience.
Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions
Introduction
Section 4 is a discussion of my reflections on the what I have learned about myself
as a scholar and researcher through this project study. The first part of the section begins
with an overview of the project’s strengths, limitations, and recommendations. The
section then reviews what I have learned during this process. This includes what I have
learned about scholarship, project development, evaluation, and leadership and change.
The last part of section 4 is an analysis of myself as a scholar, practitioner, and project
developer.
Project Strengths
This project is a white paper that was developed to provide data for the district to
create a data-driven technology professional development plan. According to O’Reilly
(2016) using a needs assessment to determine the size of the gap in practice and to
determine what is currently available and being used is beneficial. The needs assessment
survey that was given to the teachers as a part of this study provides the data for the white
paper recommendations. The strengths of this needs assessment are that the results
provided are teacher-driven. One of the impetus for this project, as mentioned in section
1, is the gap in practice that the district technology staff did not have data-based
information for maximizing the district’s approximately 300 teachers use of technology
and TLAs through organization of resources and PD (Technology coordinator, personal
communication, September 2, 2013). Educators will have varying levels of capabilities
and a needs assessment will help determine these levels (O’Reilly, 2016). Once these
levels are determined a plan can be determined. Rather than developing a plan from the
top down with no data, the needs assessment embedded in this project is providing the
data required by the district.
Recommendations for Remediation of Limitations
This part of the section will discuss the limitations of this project study. One large
limitation is participation. Even though this study’s survey was sent out to all the teachers
in the district, only a small portion participated. Enough teachers participated statistically
to make the survey valid. While the survey was statistically valid, a higher response rate
may have reflected the desires and technology use of more of the teachers. The study was
also limited in terms of demographics. For example, there was only one 12th grade
teacher, representing low representation at that grade level. As teachers see the changes
being made in what specific offerings are made available in future professional
development workshops based on their voice in the survey, additional teachers might be
convinced to participate in future surveys. The project white paper is based on limited
data from a small but statistically sufficient number of teachers. The position paper would
assert that in the future, needs assessment surveys could be given at each individual
building’s staff meeting to increase response rates. The data for future position papers
would then be based on a larger sample giving more accurate assessment of more of the
teaching staff’s needs.
Scholarship, Project Development, and Leadership and Change
Taking the doctoral path was a scary choice for me. It was late in my career, and
any extra time went to my young son. Additionally, all through my educational career, I
was told that my writing was not where it should be. Earlier I had received my Masters
from Walden and was delighted with the quality of education I received and the ability to
take classes online. So, I decided to take the chance and go for my doctoral degree. It has
taken me much longer than expected, but I have learned so much during the process.
Through this process, I look at happenings in our district with a different eye, one
that seeks to how I can help rather than looking at what they are doing to me. That might
not seem scholarly on the surface, but it has given me a chance to look at education from
a new perspective. I am looking at things through the lens of what is the research on this,
how this will impact social change, and what do I need to do to help fix the problem. I
also have learned to embrace research articles for the information they can give. When I
started reading research articles, I saw them as dry and uninspiring. I have now learned
how to read them and look at the research through a fellow researchers’ lens. I can
interpret much of these new research opportunities and deliver the information to teachers
I work with in an enthusiastic, meaningful way. I see this as a positive in the fact that I
can bring numerous new research opportunities and studies to teachers that might never
have an interest in them, which in turn will impact student learning.
Recommendations for Alternative Approaches
An alternative approach to this project would be to address the teachers directly
and have a discussion asking them the questions from the survey. The needs-assessment
participation was statistically valid but with only 87 teachers participating out of 300
might not have given a thorough sample. Having a district wide discussion to address the
access, technology use, and PD desires of the teachers would take this initial needs
assessment and give the coaches a chance to delve deeper in to the whys of the responses.
A large group discussion would give the coaches information about whether these results
would be consistent throughout the district. Scholl, Landkammer, and Sassenberg (2019)
state that teams and groups of people working towards the same goal can be more
successful by sharing the ideas that each member has and brings to the discussion. An
alternative approach of bringing the district together to openly discuss the issue of
technology would bring together different ideas that the coaches and this researcher had
not thought of.
Project Development and Evaluation
For 29 years, I have been a special education teacher with a few opportunities to
be a technology coach, technology teacher, and an International Baccalaureate (IB)
coordinator. During these variations of my career, I was always a big-picture person. I
came up with the ideas and counted on others to make plans. I would help implement the
plan to reach my vision but rarely was I a part of the planning. When I was called on to
design a plan, my plan lacked details. This project has made me stop and look at the
details. For example, while deciding on what to do for the project study, I needed to stop
and look at who I was trying to impact and what was the best way to do this. My goal was
to help the teachers use technology in their teaching, but how was I going to do this on
such a large scale? This is where details became important. The details became questions,
who was I trying to impact, why was this important, how best could I make an impact,
how do I find out what is truly needed. Each of those questions had to be answered in
detail before I could proceed with the grand plan.
Once I had those details assessed and the first part of the project underway, I then
needed to work on the finer details of the white paper. I approached this the way I do
student writing assignments by answering the questions of what the purpose of the paper
is and who is the audience. The purpose was to present the findings of the survey to help
guide teacher-initiated professional development. Thus, I took the data collected in the
survey and turning it into information that the district can use to plan professional
development for the teachers. The primary audience is the technology department of my
district, but other essential audience members would be the teachers, district leaders, and
Board of Education.
Through this process, I have learned that more goes in to project development and
evaluation than just the result. One detail that I found was very important was the
protection of human rights. As a special education teacher, I always looked out for that
population and made sure they were represented and protected, but there are so many
other categories to think about. Taking the National Institute of Health’s Protecting
Human Research Participants course opened my eyes to how we can assume things in
projects and plans, but we need to look at it from all angles. When developing a project or
questionnaire for my building teachers, I look at how my questions could be perceived by
different groups, whether or not it makes someone feel uncomfortable, or unintentionally
put them in an awkward position.
Leadership and Change
This project study has been a big undertaking and this section discusses this
particular research study, but I cannot separate the dissertation study experience from my
whole Walden doctoral journey, including my coursework and career. Throughout my
career, I have taken leadership roles, whether it be union representative, 6th-grade team
leader, technology coach, different coordinator positions, or member of numerous district
committees. Going into this program with a focus on teacher leadership was the next step.
I have learned many things about becoming a teacher leader, but I did not truly realize it
until this last two years. Over these two years, due to circumstances, my building
principal was out on and off for a total of 4 months. During the time she was out, the staff
looked to me for guidance and direction. Each time she was out, there was no discussion,
I just became the leader of the building. At the time, I had doubts but continued in the
leadership style I had developed through this doctoral program. I realized how much I
had learned when the principal retired, and every teacher in the building decided to make
a case to the district for why I should be the new principal. I cannot name specific things I
have learned through this program, but I have learned a lot. I know the person that started
this journey is a much better leader because of the journey.
A big part of the transition in my leadership style was change. Through this
process, I have learned that change is not a bad thing. My attitudes have changed, my
style has changed, and the way I look at my district and school has changed. The project
study had me look at a problem and, to properly look at that problem, I had to dig deeper,
talk to people, and do research. The study made me find potential reasons and solutions
from different perspectives. By looking more in-depth, I was able to see the problem from
not just a local point of view but how did this fit into a larger realm, were others having
the same problem, and how did they approach it. The project study I started with is
completely different than the one I ended up with due to these questions and this process
of change.
Analysis of Self as Scholar
I have learned that my writing is not bad, it is just not scholarly, and that is not a
bad thing. My scholarly writing has improved greatly, but I still have difficulty keeping
my voice out of my writing. For example, these few sentences would not be considered
scholarly, but I find them to be more interesting to read that a purely academic tone of
voice. I realize the need in an academic paper to keep my opinions out of the actual paper
and rather depend on the evidence presented in research articles to inform the paper and
the study. It is my goal to offer an unbiased representation of the facts. I also understand
the need to be professional and to be taken seriously. Doing research is arduous,
painstaking work and must be revered as a higher standard of knowledge rather than a
newsletter or magazine article. I have come to understand these things but I am still glad I
will be able to write in my voice as principal to my teachers. They will appreciate my
voice rather than a scholarly tone.
Analysis of Self as Practitioner
I did not always want to be a teacher. I never thought I would be until I took a
child development class and decided that this is what I wanted to do. When I started this
journey, I had been teaching for quite a while and felt I was doing a good job.
Throughout my career, I have always wanted to improve my teaching but waited for new
ideas or methods to come to me. This project study process has made me a better
practitioner in the fact that now I go find the best practices. Research was always
something somebody else read and then disseminated to me. Now I can sit and read a
research study and absorb it myself. This ability has brought new ideas and methods to
my teaching. I can read about different programs and give an objective opinion based on
the research that I now understand. Being able to discuss whether the research the
particular program is giving was done with validity and reliability has helped keep me
from jumping in too soon. In my classroom I look at things from multiple perspectives, I
also find myself asking students and teachers higher-order questions, asking them to
explain their answers and give valid reasons for their answers if they are different from
mine. This is attributed to this process, and now I know I am excelling as a practitioner.
Analysis of Self as Project Developer
The development of this project was long and difficult. I also have a hard-time
delineating the final project from the process. When I began, I thought this would be a
simple straight forward project.
In regard to how to present the findings of the survey, I reviewed quite a few
ideas. My first idea was to present a professional development workshop on what the
teachers were asking for, according to the survey. I realized this was not feasible because
I could not deliver that many workshops and that the idea was to deliver the workshops
that the teachers were asking for across the district and at different buildings, not one
formulaic workshop. I then investigated what was the best way to present the information
in a format the district technology coaches could use. I concluded a white paper was the
best way to disseminate the information. The white paper gives me the ability to present
the problem, process, results, and conclusions to the needed stakeholders in a format that
is concise and on topic. The white paper also gives me the opportunity to deliver the
results to surrounding districts. Other districts may not be able to use the data results but
the process is something that could be replicated. This process made me look beyond
what I wanted to accomplish. I had to analyze and discover what was needed to achieve
my goal and develop a process that would be successful for my district and other districts.
The white paper was developed after the data from the survey had been examined. As I
went through the research questions and discovered what was needed concerning the
teachers desires, I analyzed the best approach. I looked at where the data was showing
need and researched what was out in the educational community about these issues.
Through this research I developed suggestions and ideas for the district to address the
concerns and needs of the teachers.
The Project’s Potential Impact on Social Change When I began
this project, very little research was done on technology in education at a complexity
level my school required. Research had been done on the use of technology in education
but not necessarily on the integration of technology. As I progressed through the
process, I found recent research regarding specific types of technology and their use in
education, particularly for specific subjects. Technology is a tool that schools have
embraced but how we use that technology is just as important as what we use. This
project has opened the door to research on a deeper level, not just looking at do teachers
use the computer, but how do teachers help students to use the computer in their
learning. When the district applies the information from this study into their planning of
professional development workshops, it will promote a positive growth towards this
type of research on a larger scale.
This project has also has given the teachers a voice. Much of the current research
ask teachers about what they are currently doing or have done. This research asked about
what they want. More needs studies need to be done asking the teachers about what they
want concerning curriculum, teaching styles, classroom arrangements, and technology.
Many professional development workshops are developed by administrators or directors
guessing about what is needed or wanted; this study is based on what teachers want.
Maybe this study will promote more research in this direction of giving the teachers a
voice and asking them what they need or want rather than what they have done already.
The development of the white paper has also given a voice to the issue of what
professional development teachers want. This project will be shared with my district and
surrounding districts as part of a technology consortium. The technology coaches of
surrounding districts have started meeting every few months to discuss best practices.
This is a big step for our district and the surrounding districts that, in the past, have been
very cloistered. I will share the white paper at one of these meetings and share the needs
assessment survey that was used in the project. Our state also has numerous technology
conferences throughout the year. Applying to speak at these workshops and present the
results of the project around the state will give more districts an opportunity to share the
needs assessment survey.
Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research
This study focuses on one district and the needs of its teachers regarding
technology and technology integration. What was learned in this study is what type of
professional development teachers desire. This information will be given to district
technology coaches to develop focused professional development workshops for the
district teachers. In the future, this needs study could be done again and then compared to
this study to see if any gains or changes are seen. The idea of the needs study could also
be used for different subjects within the district, giving the teachers a voice in regard to
their teaching of all subjects and curriculums.
During this project, the district has experienced three different Superintendents
over 5 years. The technology coach has changed twice, and the board has had three
resignations and two removals. With all these changes come changes in vision and
priorities. The district's commitment to technology has not changed but the priority for
technology professional development has. One way to combat this is embedded in the
white paper itself a discussion on the importance and need for targeted, teacher-driven
technology professional development protocols and the importance to keep technology
PD workshops as a priority.
This study was a quantitative needs study. In the future, it would be interesting to
do a qualitative study on technology and integration. It would be valuable to learn why
teachers want to learn about and use particular technology instead of just finding out if
the teachers are using technology, and if teachers desire professional development. A
qualitative study would be able to delve deeper and find out why some teachers are
integrating certain technologies and why others are not. That information could then be
useful in helping the teachers that are not integrating,
Conclusion
Section 4 was a discussion about me as a practitioner and a scholar, and how I
grew throughout this process. This section began with an overview of the projects’
strengths, limitations, and recommendations. The most important strength was also its
limitation. The project gave the teachers a voice but also not many teachers took
advantage of this voice. The section then reviews what I have learned about scholarship,
project development, evaluation, and leadership and change. The final part of section 4
was an analysis of myself as a scholar, practitioner, and project developer. This was the
growth section, how have I grown through this process. The amazing thing was that the
growth was not all in the technology area, even though this was the focus of the study.
Most of the growth came in my ability to expand my mind and become more openminded
in how I approach others through questioning and scholarly writing. The last part of the
section discusses implications for social change, implications, applications, and directions
for further research. The white paper developed from this project will be shared through
meetings, workshops and presentations across the state. This will give other districts a
chance to see the results and conduct their needs assessment. As a practitioner, I would
like to take this project farther and do a qualitative study to fill in information about why
teachers are not integrating technology in their teaching.
