Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration and Pedagogy in Kindergarten–Grade 5

Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration and

Pedagogy in Kindergarten–Grade 5

Section 1: The Problem

For teachers in kindergarten through fifth grade (Grades K-5) classrooms, better

preparing students with 21st-century skills is a key aim. Their expectations change as

technology advances, increasing the need to understand their perceptions of technology's

role in teaching. According to O’Neal et al. (2017) the integration of technology within

the curriculum aids in developing the skills necessary for success in the modern world.

Still, the purpose of technology in 21st-century teaching has yet to be identified in Grades

K-5.Common Sense Media (2019) conducted research indicating that approximately one

third of U.S. teachers who were provided technology products by either their school or

district did not regularly use the technology. Further substantiating the need for more

investigation of barriers to teachers’ use of technology, Mouza (2019) found that most

teachers perceive digital technologies as helpful to students’ education. They face a

challenge, though, in using technology to create a learner-centered classroom. Teachers

are not necessarily provided with the correct professional development (PD) and

technological tools to integrate technology consistently and effectively within their

classroom.

Although most Grades K-5 educators agree that technology is vital within

teaching, they struggle to consistently integrate technology across the curriculum.

Technology integration continues to be a separate activity from instruction, and in

classrooms, technology is provided as an independent activity or used as an incentive or

reward (Zipke, 2018). Furthermore, the literature reveals that technology is not being

integrated into pedagogy and instead is used for necessary activities such as displaying

information to students (Regan et al., 2019). The implementation of technology within

instruction requires PD. Despite rapid technological advancements, teachers have been

slow to adopt technologies due to a lack of technological resources and PD.

Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) is a conceptual framework for

integrating technology within classroom instruction. A study conducted by Zipke (2018)

indicated an absence of pedagogical knowledge (PK) on how best to implement

technology within education. The study found that many teachers have the ability to use

devices, otherwise known as technical knowledge (TK). However, due to a lack of PD,

many teachers do not have technological content knowledge (TCK) to understand how

technology can change the content area taught and how to build technological

pedagogical knowledge (TPK) and integrate technology into instruction within their

pedagogical practices.

A large body of literature indicates that a substantial gap exists between

conceptual understanding and the application of technology within classroom instruction.

Regen et al. (2019) found that U.S. teachers face barriers to consistently integrating

technology within instruction, which include lack of constant access to technology and

being afforded little to no appropriate PD leading to teachers questioning the value of

technology. The use of technology within instruction has the potential to have social

implications since it has the capacity to operate as a window outside the four walls of the

traditional K-5 classroom.

The Local Problem

Technology integration within classroom instruction is a new concept to both

teachers and students. Hutchison and Woodward (2018) noted that expectations of what

students should know and do and what instructional learning experiences teachers should

provide have changed and there has been an increasing importance given to, and focus

on, technology in classroom instruction. However, there were barriers to technology

integration at a small, suburban elementary school in the western United States.

Specifically, the problem was that teachers in Grades K-5 were not implementing

technology within instruction consistently at the study site. This issue affected the

elementary school under study because developing consistent and effective pedagogical

practices when integrating technology into K–5 classroom instruction is a vital

component of a systematic approach to instruction (Hutchison and Woodward, 2018).

Leaders at the elementary school under study acknowledged that teachers'

pedagogical practices should be effective for all students and reflected in the data from

year to year and indicated that teachers should use the adopted program resources,

specifically the online components, in classroom instruction. Success would be when

students are engaged in higher-level rigorous learning in all subjects that reflected their

grade-level expectations. However, the principal from the elementary school under study

described the attitudes of teachers as angst-ridden about the implementation of

technology within instruction, stating that “teachers have expressed anxiety over using

technology within their instruction and do not feel confident in its implementation.” Data

from the Colorado State Model Performance Management System (Colorado Department

of Education, 2021) showed inconsistencies in how students at the study site used

technology programs or software for learning and teachers for classroom instruction.

Despite having comparable technology equipment, access to district PD, and

similar digital curriculum resources, teachers faced challenges in using technology for

classroom instruction. Further evidence of the problem across Grades K-5 was

communicated in the meeting minutes for grade-level professional learning communities

(PLCs). According to the principal, during PLC meetings, teachers had expressed that

they “do not know how to use technology within their instruction and that they would

rather leave the computers charging than try to mess with them.” The principal added that

teachers at the school had indicated that their students are “too young, not

developmentally ready, or would just play.” Teachers were not using technology

consistently within the classroom despite having the technology accessible within their

classrooms.

Rationale

Harrell and Bynum (2018) established that self-efficacy plays a significant role in

teachers’ desire to use technology tools within classroom instruction; therefore, when

teachers are not confident in using these tools, they tend to have a lower perception of

their value. Effective use of technology within instruction hinges on modifying

pedagogical practices efficiently and overcoming barriers integrating technology into

existing pedagogical beliefs and practices. Further research conducted by Burke et al.

(2018) established that the modification of pedagogical approaches in technology

integration within the classroom was influenced by individual perceptions and attitudes

toward technology, and the pedagogical practices used with integrating technology into

the classroom instruction were not always coherent with teachers’ existing pedagogical

beliefs.

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore the perceptions of

teachers in Grades K-5 at the elementary school under study regarding the technology

integration within classroom instruction. I sought to understand why teachers were not

consistently implementing technology within instruction. This study may contribute to

the body of knowledge on teachers’ use of technology as well as provide the building

leadership team with insight into current pedagogical practices applied by the building’s

K-5 teachers to integrate technology within classroom instruction. I used the results to

design a PD (see Appendix A), which I further discuss in Section 3.

Definition of Terms

This subsection includes definitions of terms and abbreviations that are particular

to this study.

Blended learning: “The strategic integration of in-person and virtual learning to

personalize instruction” (Greene & Hale, 2017, p. 136).

Content knowledge (CK): A term that is part of the TPACK framework and refers

to the knowledge of subject matter (Kali et al., 2019).

1:1: A term that stands for “one-laptop-per-student” (Luo & Murray, 2018, p. 87).

Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): A term that is part of the TPACK

framework and according to Johnson (2017) refers to “the blending of content and

pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems or issues are

organized, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and

presented for instruction” (p. 20).

Pedagogical knowledge (PK): A term that is part of the TPACK framework and

according to Inpeng and Nomnian (2020) refers to “the approach to teaching, including

students’ learning, class management, lesson planning, and learner assessment; all of

which are also emphasized simultaneously” (p.372).

Technological content knowledge (TCK): A term that is part of the TPACK

framework and refers to “knowledge of the reciprocal relationship between technology

and content” (Park & Hargis, 2018, p. 5).

Technological knowledge (TK): A term that is part of the TPACK framework

refers to “knowledge of the reciprocal relationship between technology and content”

(Park & Hargis, 2018, p. 5).

Technology leadership: A school leaders’ capacity to “select efficacious

technologies to support student learning and create effective opportunities for teachers to

learn to integrate them” (Dexter & Barton, 2021, p. 368).

Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): A conceptual

framework for “knowledge about the complex relations among technology, pedagogy,

and content that enables teachers to develop appropriate and context-specific teaching

strategies” (Park & Hargis, 2018, p. 6).

Technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK): A part of the TPACK framework

that refers to “knowledge and content that enable teachers to develop appropriate and

context-specific teaching strategies” (Park & Hargis, 2018, p. 5).

21st-century skills: 21st-centuryA learning framework that “identifies the skills,

knowledge, and expertise required by students to be successful in the current digital

economy” (Goradia, 2018, p. 47).

Significance of the Study

This study was needed to address the problem of teachers in Grades K-5 at the

study site not implementing technology within instruction with consistency, despite

having comparable technology equipment, access to district PD, and similar digital

curriculum resources. This study addressed an emerging question concerning current

pedagogical practices and integrating technology within classroom instruction

consistently in the new age of technology use within the K-5 classroom. The knowledge

gained from this study could be used in educating future preservice teachers in

preparation to instruct and meet the needs of 21st-century students. Specifically, teacher

educators may be able to use the study findings to impart education students with the

proper skills and expertise to implement technology in their pedagogical practices before

entering a classroom.

Research Questions

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore the perceptions of

teachers in Grades K-5 at the elementary school under study to better understand better

why they did not consistently integrate technology within instruction. I designed the

research questions (RQs) to explore the perceptions of teachers who teach within a 1:1

classroom. The RQs were as follows:

RQ1: What pedagogical practices do teachers perceive as necessary to integrate

technology consistently within classroom instruction?

RQ2: How do teachers perceive their ability to integrate technology consistently

within classroom instruction?

Review of the Literature

The literature review consists of the conceptual framework for the study and three

sections relating to teachers’ perceptions on technology integration and pedagogy in the

K-5 classroom. PD is also addressed. In the literature review, I first discuss the

conceptual framework of TPACK and self-efficacy I used to guide this study. Focusing

on technology integration, I discuss integrating technology within the classroom,

including 21st-century skills, values, and beliefs of educators, and the self-efficacy,

potential barriers, or limitations of teachers regarding technology integration. The second

section of the review emphasizes the pedagogical practices necessary within the 1:1

classroom or blended learning environment to consistently integrate technology within

classroom instruction. Finally, in the third section of the review I concentrate on the

perceived PD provided to K-5 teachers to create blended learning environments or a 1:1

classroom and teachers’ willingness to accept technology training.

Conceptual Framework

This section of the literature review includes peer-reviewed articles relating to

TPACK and self-efficacy, which constituted the conceptual framework for this study. As

technologies have become more readily available, there has an increase in digital

discourse in education on how these technologies can change the current classroom

(Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Mishra and Koehler (2006) developed the initial description

of the TPACK framework by adding to Shulman’s (1986) design of PCK. PCK integrates

pedagogical practices and CK with a focus on how teachers blend the two to create

powerful representations of subject matter through pedagogical practices. Building upon

PCK, the TPACK framework adds technology to build upon the relationships and

interactions of content, pedagogy, and technology within instruction, as seen in Figure 1.

Use of the framework aids instructors in integrating technology to provide effective

teaching that intertwines content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge (Park & Hargis,

2018).

Figure 1

The Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework

Note. From Using the TPACK Image, by M. Koehler, 2011, TPACK.org

Proficiencies and skills for the 21st-century need to be established as digital

technologies enter the classrooms. The TPACK framework is a valuable tool to

incorporate digital technologies into the classroom (Goradia, 2018). The framework

focuses on three core components: CK, PK, and TK. There are four more

interrelationships between these three core components, including TCK, PCK, TPK, and

TPACK.

Koehler et al. (2013) clarified the seven different components of TPACK and the

interrelationships created. CK is the subject matter taught and the teacher’s knowledge of

that subject matter. Goradia (2018) concurred that CK is the educator’s comprehension of

specific subject matter and is specific to content-specific area practices. PK is the

teacher’s understanding of teaching involving specific procedures, routines, and activities

that comprise the subject matter's educational purpose (Koehler et al., 2013). TK is

everchanging as technology is fluid with new technologies frequently emerging.

Therefore, TK applies to any technological resources or tools used in teaching. PCK

integrates pedagogical practices and CK and how teachers blend the two to create

powerful representations of subject matter through pedagogical practices (Mishra &

Koehler, 2006). TCK is the collective understanding between content and technology and

the relationship developed over time between content and the technology used within that

content area (Park & Hargis, 2018). TPK is the knowledge that learning and teaching

methods can change depending upon the type of technologies being utilized and how they

are being used (Koehler et al., 2013). Finally, Mishra and Koehler (2006) termed the

ultimate component technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), which is the

joining of all the components to form the conceptual framework in which the foundation

of teaching with technology is interwoven through CK, pedagogical practices, knowledge

of students and their prior experience, and knowledge of technology and ways to utilize

technology within teaching contexts.

Many pedagogical practices, such as the use of pencil, paper, and whiteboards,

have remained stagnant, not changing a great deal over time. The arrival of the computer

and the internet and other technologies has resulted in educators reevaluating their

pedagogical practices, creating a new dynamic relationship between technology and

pedagogy (Koehler et al., 2013). Although many U.S. teachers have incorporated

technology into their classrooms, many still do not embrace or welcome technology and

Mishra and Koehler (2006) suggested an assortment of reasons, including lack of support,

time, and fear of change, for this hesitancy.

Mishra and Koehler (2006) assert that teachers do not adopt technologies either

because of their self perceived-efficacy or they do not see the value of technology within

the learning context. The framework of self-efficacy used for this study was first devised

by psychologist Albert Bandura in 1977 and is a collection of beliefs regarding how

effectively a person can carry out a plan of action in a given circumstance. Individuals'

perceptions about their talents have a significant impact on their ability. Ability is not a

fixed characteristic; performance is highly variable. Individuals with a strong sense of

self-efficacy rebound from failure; they approach situations with an eye toward how to

manage them rather than worrying about what could go wrong.

Performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and

physiological conditions are the four main sources of information that contribute to

selfefficacy (Bandura, 1977). As Bandura (1977) noted, because performance

accomplishments are founded on personal mastery experiences, they are particularly

significant. Successes increase mastery expectations; setbacks, especially those that occur

early in the course of events, decrease them. The negative effect of periodic failures is

likely to be minimized when high efficacy expectations are established via recurrent

success. Vicarious experience occurs when individuals do not depend only on

experienced mastery to determine their degree of self-efficacy. Observers may develop

expectations that they, too, would improve if they increase and persevere in their efforts

after seeing others conduct risky activities without adverse repercussions. Verbal

persuasion is frequently utilized due to its simplicity and accessibility. Through

suggestion, individuals are taught to think they are capable of effectively coping with

whatever has previously overwhelmed them. Efficacy expectations created in this way

tend to be less robust than those generated by one's own achievements, since they lack a

genuine experience foundation. Finally, physiological conditions may influence perceived

self-efficacy in the face of a perceived threat. Individuals make judgments about their

anxiety and susceptibility to stress in part based on their physiological stress response.

Because excessive stress often impairs performance, people who are not plagued by

unpleasant stress indicators are more likely to anticipate success than those who are tight

and profoundly distressed (Bandura, 1977)

The TPACK and self-efficacy frameworks can be used to identify the barriers to

technology integration, how teachers’ self-efficacy and values affect their ability to

integrate technology within their lessons consistently, and what PD is needed to integrate

technology consistently within a classroom. Mishra and Koehler (2006) argued that the

TPACK framework is a helpful tool because PD needs to be reimagined into a

learningtechnology-by-design approach where the emphasis is placed on learning versus

the traditional sit and lecture-style PD that is typically provided. The TPACK and

selfefficacy frameworks provided a guide for the development of the RQs. The focus of

the RQs was on understanding teachers’ perceptions of (a) the pedagogical practices that

are necessary for them to consistently integrate technology in the classroom and (b) their

ability or self-efficacy to consistently integrate technology within classroom instruction.

By using the TPACK and self-efficacy frameworks, I was able to create

comprehensive interview questions to collect data. Mishra and Koehler (2006) explained

that the TPACK framework is an approach to understanding a teacher’s knowledge

within multiple contexts. Bandura (1977) argued that perceived self-efficacy may not

only have a direct impact on the activities and situations that people choose, but it can

also have an impact on the coping strategies that people use because of the expectations

that have ultimate success. The study’s conceptual framework provided a means of

understanding teacher knowledge and self-efficacy within technology integration. The

TPACK and self-efficacy frameworks help establish a straightforward approach to

teaching technology with learning-by-design.

Review of the Broader Problem

In this review, I examine the topics related to the problem at a small, suburban

elementary school in a western state where teachers in Grades K-5 were not consistently

implementing technology within instruction. A review of the literature was fundamental

to understanding teachers’ perceptions regarding technology integration and pedagogy in

K-5 education. The following three sections focus on the three key areas that emerged

from the research: technology integration, pedagogy, and PD. Information to complete

this literature review was obtained using an assortment of Walden University online

library databases, including Education Source, ERIC, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Ebook

Central, and SAGE. The primary databases used in conducting the research were

Education Source and ERIC. Specific keywords were used to locate the literature,

including blended learning, online, elementary, technology integration, pedagogical

practices, TPACK, and 1:1 classroom. Information for this literature review originated

from 43 peer-reviewed journal source articles.

Technology Integration

In this subsection, I discuss technology integration in the classroom, including

educators' 21st-century skills, values, beliefs, and self-efficacy about technology

integration. I also address challenges or shortcomings. Integration of technology is a

process in which technology is used to prepare and deliver instruction, thereby adding

value to the curriculum (Liu et al., 2017). Technology integration must be integrated

throughout all content areas (Masullo, 2017). It is worth noting that Gherardi (2017)

predicted that technology may result in instruction moving away from the antiquated

methods of teaching, communication, and learning that are presently seen in U.S.

educational institutions. Researchers Parrish and Sadera (2020) discovered that

21stcentury skills gained via 1:1 technology integration had a positive impact on students'

subject skill development. In a study that included both quantitative and qualitative data.

To develop an inventory of the knowledge and skills that classroom teachers must

possess to implement learner-centered learning in 1:1 classrooms, Parrish and Sadera

(2020) used a classic Delphi method, which included iterative development of the

inventory as well as statistical group response, anonymity, and controlled feedback,

among other techniques. They found that when learner-centered teaching is coupled with

a 1:1 technology ratio, the 1:1 teacher's capacity to improvise, respond flexibly to meet

students' needs, and capitalize on teachable opportunities significantly improves. When it

comes to implementing learner-centered learning in 1:1 classrooms, the study highlighted

the knowledge and abilities that instructors must possess and show. Teachers' PD and

growth were identified as areas of focus in the inventory, which indicated that the need to

operationalize effective instructional practice. The inventory also revealed that

educational researchers and leaders need to outline essential instructional practices and

create areas of focus for teachers' PD and growth. The inventory may also be useful to

reveal information about teacher competencies that are required to be prepared for 1:1

learning environments.

21st-Century Skills. The advancement of technology has altered many aspects of

individuals’ daily lives. Technology advancements have often altered how they live and

read, including how they learn. Holen et al. (2017) asserts that technological instruments

are now accessible in various formats, transforming the modern classroom into an area

that is incompatible with the conventional classroom of the past. As technology has

increased, the future workforce's skill set has needed to adapt because the skills of the

past no longer match the technical skill set that students of the 21st-century need to

possess (Holen et al., 2017).

Holen et al. (2017) suggests that laptop integration on a 1:1 basis, where each

student is provided with a technology device, has prevailed in schools worldwide. In the

study the results indicated the greatest overall rating from students, while teachers were

more likely to be neutral. The students believed that the availability of technology made it

easier for them to acquire and research information on the subject under study. 1:1

initiatives are adopted for various purposes, including improved student participation and

accomplishment, enhanced instructional excellence, and the desire to train future

generations for the 21st-century.

Sauers and McLeod (2020) found that the quality of a student's access to and

usage of technology during teaching is a positive predictor of students' reading and math

scores, with a significant connection (p < .001) established between student performance

in math and reading and students' access to technology during teaching. The researchers

examined the effect of technology on two teacher behaviors, comparing how teachers in

1:1 school rated their technology integration to their colleagues in non-1:1 schools and

how teachers self-assessed their technological competence in both 1:1 and non-1:1

schools. Propensity score matching was used to identify participants, and data were

analyzed using a multilevel model. The data analysis revealed that 1:1 educators had

higher levels of technology knowledge than their peers, and the findings suggest that 1:1

educators may perform better than their peers on one component of the TPACK model,

which has implications for their ability to deliver effective instruction (Sauers & McLeod

2020). Students and instructors may expand their learning in this era of technology,

which helps to further substantiate the findings of the study.

Pierce (2017) suggested that the contemporary age of technology allows

instructors to divert instruction away from textbooks and involve students in a range of

current resources and technologies. Students in today's society are said to be "digital

natives" because they have immediate access to information with only a few clicks

(Harrell & Bynum, 2018). They are connected via different interactive platforms in their

everyday lives, which has changed the way students engage with one another and learn at

school in the 21st-century (Hur et al., 2016).

Learners now need 21st-century skills and knowledge to compete in today's

technology-driven environment. Twenty-first century abilities must be incorporated into

the academic experience for students to become successful citizens (Nelson et al., 2019).

The industrial age classroom has started to be modernized to meet the demands of a

21stcentury community of learners. To achieve this transition, teachers' learning, and

skills must also improve (Hall et al., 2019). However, further study is necessary to train

teachers to transform their pedagogical practices and skills to foster 21st-century learning

in their classrooms (Chai et al., 2019). When classroom education becomes more

dependent on technology, requirements for teacher-designed environments change,

affecting the kind of skills and knowledge that students may show to their teachers. Via

the use of appropriate technologies, instruction in the 21st-century classroom enabled

students to create queries, explain their responses, and challenge the viewpoints of other

students (Thomas & Edison, 2019).

Schools across the United States have adopted standards that include technical

capabilities, emphasizing the importance of technology incorporation for 21st-century

learners (Hutchison & Woodward, 2018). Reaffirming the critical importance of

technological convergence as the 21st-century progresses, everyone must be adept at

managing the online environment and technological tools used in education and culture at

large (Kuehl, 2018). Research has indicated that access to CK from the instructor to the

learner could be accomplished via various communication types (Foulger et al., 2017).

Closing the gaps between what teachers present and what students already know, on the

other hand, suggests the need to expand technology leadership knowledge and skills

beyond the fundamentals. Technology leadership is also critical for effectively

transmitting 21st-century abilities inside the classroom, particularly when it comes to

determining the best ways to use these technologies to enhance learning (Masullo, 2017).

Through 1:1 incorporation and the advancement of 21st-century skills, we will extend

learning into the classroom. This growth in 21st-century skills and knowledge

necessitated a school atmosphere based around learner-centered classroom models that

were technologically advanced (Varier et al., 2017). It was further discovered that

teachers who integrated technology into their teaching trusted in the potential of

technology to change instruction and themselves and that leadership demonstrated the

value of 21st-century technology expertise within a school community (Heath, 2017).

Technology advanced at a rapid pace in the twenty-first century. The proliferation

of technology tools allowed educators to educate outside of textbooks and engage

learners globally through on-demand resources (Pierce, 2017). Students could

complement what they studied in class with a more significant source of information

from our global community (Geer et al., 2017). This increased access to more relevant

knowledge and technology prompted Kuehl (2018) to advise educators that to train

students for a mostly online society, they must remain persistently informed regarding

technical developments and advances. Nevertheless, schools are responsible for educating

children for the 21st-century by allocating services to the 1:1 classroom. They emphasize

the importance of promoting teaching and instructor training through effective

professional growth (Parrish & Sadera, 2020).

Individual empowerment in learning is feasible in today’s society (Greene & Hale,

2017). 21st-century learners can collaborate through multiple devices, share information,

and have higher-order discussions that lead to higher-order thinking through the

utilization of technology to build upon discussions and create new knowledge when

technology was implemented into the curriculum (Goradia, 2018) and expanding on this

idea Greene and Hale (2017) have asserted that technological integration in the

21stcentury would respond to the individual requirements of each learner. However,

learning environments must evolve and be redesigned to accommodate a learner-centered

global knowledge format. For this to work, teachers must be involved in technology

adoption decisions in the 21st-century 1:1 classroom (Varier et al., 2017).

Values and Beliefs. Values and beliefs have a significant impact on how

educators conduct themselves in the classroom , in a recent mixed methods study Mills et

al. (2019) indicated that instructor use of technology in teaching varied according to

personal and external perceptions. The findings exposed that teacher belief did not result

in a shift in pedagogical practice. Individuals' beliefs guided their capacity to identify and

comprehend both themselves and the world in which they lived and operated daily.

Interestingly, Tondeur et al. (2017) further substantiated this idea through

qualitative analysis that teachers hold beliefs in either teacher-centered or learnercentered

pedagogical views or both. These views have been established over time and across

various interactions, resulting in possible resistance to reform. Educators' attitudes and

perspectives have influenced the creation, implementation, and sustainability of

technology transformation initiatives within school systems. Teachers interact with

technology regularly in the classroom, and instructor values and beliefs about technology

are the most critical indicators of sustained technology adoption (Lawrence et al., 2018).

Teacher beliefs are critical during the technology integration process, but Heath (2017)

using a transcendental phenomenology case study suggested that teachers' voices are

often overlooked during implementation discussions and added that while teachers'

perspectives are excluded from the debate around school technology change, adoption

often falls short of addressing the demands of students and teachers.

Additionally, Varier et al. (2017) discovered through an exploratory qualitative

investigation that, although teacher attitudes about technology can vary, teachers' values

and priorities have a significant impact on the performance of technology integration in

the classroom. Technology integration occurs as teachers see technology as a natural part

of their everyday lives and are involved in networks of experience that educate them

about the value of technology in classroom teaching. Nonetheless, according to the

findings of a study conducted by Voihofer et al. (2019), using both descriptive statistics

and regression analysis, it was discovered that teachers who do not regularly use

technology in their personal or professional lives must demonstrate the benefits of

technology use more clearly than teachers who do. When teachers have a basic

understanding of technology, they become more aware of the content-specific

pedagogical potential that technology has to offer for student learning. However, when

teachers do not use technology consistently, they are not necessarily able to transfer their

pedagogical knowledge and skill to technological teaching approaches, and simply

knowing how to use technology is not the same as knowing how to teach with

technology.

Both student and professional needs shape teachers' beliefs and values. Teachers'

values influence technology integration, and what defines technology's value in a

teacher's classroom is more potent than their technical skills (Kimmons & Hall, 2016).

Teachers' values or mindsets influence their willingness to learn and acquire technical

skills. This effect was discovered to be trepidation-inducing due to educators' conflicting

perspectives on employing technology effectively in the classroom (Park & Hargis,

2018). Nevertheless, in order for technology to be meaningful in classrooms and promote

pedagogical reform, teachers must be empowered and motivated to develop constructive

attitudes about technology and recognize the importance technology can bring to teaching

(Heath, 2017).

The integration of technology and the teachers' own perspectives on the

importance of technology informs pedagogical practices. Technology integration and

instructor values are inextricably linked (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). Confirming this strong

association between teacher expectations and integration, Burke et al. (2018) concluded

that teachers' beliefs and values about technology have a direct effect on their usage of

technology in teaching, and Heath (2017) reasoned that a significant impediment to

technological integration is teachers' values and beliefs. With the development of

teachers' technical expertise and skills, the teachers' ability increased, potentially resulting

in a shift in their technology adoption beliefs. This claim was further substantiated by the

findings of Nelson et al. (2019), who conducted a quantitative study and discovered that

teachers' values and beliefs about technology integration and classroom pedagogical

practices differ depending on the content area they teach in math, English language arts,

science, and social studies. The findings of the study made recommendations for

providing PD opportunities and supportive environments that promote teacher educators

to experiment with technologies in ways that are situated within their context area,

thereby ensuring that teachers receive PD that is relevant to their context, thus influencing

their pedagogical values within content specific areas. The pedagogical values held by

teachers had an impact on their teaching activities. Teacherselected teaching strategies

and technological tools were chosen in accordance with their own personal values and

beliefs. In contrast to teachers with learner-centered beliefs, teachers with teacher-

centered beliefs preferred to include technology in their pedagogical practices that were

oriented toward open-ended questions and teamwork for conversation extensions toward

the learning goals rather than teachers with learnercentered beliefs. Teachers’ pedagogical

methods and technological use were inextricably linked to their pedagogical values,

which was previously asserted.

Considering values and beliefs from the TPACK framework's perspective, Park

and Hargis's (2018) research suggested that a teacher’s beliefs affected the relationship

between TK and a teacher's ability to progress towards TPACK. Further substantiating

this claim, Nelson et al. (2019) built upon the TK idea and added that a teacher’s

perception that their organization supported them impacted their technology integration

beliefs, contributing significantly to TK and the movement towards TPACK. An

influential concept in TPACK was identifying the knowledge and skills needed for

21stcentury lesson design. However, Chai et al. (2019) contended that studies showed

that, amid the introduction of TPACK, classroom technology integration has remained

stable. A teacher's familiarity with classroom technology adoption may significantly

affect their understanding of technology's value in classroom teaching. Teachers who

place a high premium on technological integration are more inclined to incorporate it into

their lessons. Additionally, teachers with strong convictions may reach a point where

complete integration appears difficult due to individual experiences with technology

integration or the use of technology in the classroom that have shaped their perspective

on the importance of technology in the classroom. One-to-one integration should be

implemented in a way that respects teacher voice, established teacher beliefs, and the

realities of a teacher's daily life in the classroom.

Teachers expressed significant reservations about the ways in which 1:1

computing technology would affect them personally, as well as about the ways in which

students would be impacted by the initiative. They proposed that, to counteract these

negative beliefs, teachers should be given a say in the development and implementation

of 1:1 initiatives from the beginning. According to the findings of this study, teachers

who have a positive belief in technology as well as a sense of professional agency can

successfully implement technology in their classrooms. As a result, it is recommended

that policymakers and school leaders empower teachers by building capacity and

assisting in the development of positive teacher beliefs well in advance of technology

implementation initiatives. PD should also take into consideration teacher input and

existing beliefs, while also providing opportunities for teachers to take risks when using

technology (Heath, 2017).

The desire of teachers to incorporate technology into their existing pedagogical

activities in the classroom has been demonstrated to enhance those activities; however,

the smooth application of technology integration processes should not be used to close

the gap between the instruction of novice and veteran teachers through technological

interactions. As a result, both novice and experienced teachers must rely on one another

to make sound pedagogical decisions about the use of technology while also

acknowledging the diversity of pedagogical approaches. Thus, technology integration

processes are treated as a human process guided by beliefs and behaviors of teachers as

well as by their interactions with students (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). However,

Christensen and Knezek (2016) concluded that as teachers' years of experience grow, the

perceived advantages or benefits of technology in the classroom diminish. The

application of technology in the classroom is linked to the technology used in the

teacher's everyday career. Suppose teachers cannot incorporate technology into their daily

tasks. In that case, they would lack an appreciation for the importance of technology in

classroom teaching and would struggle to implement technology into their pedagogical

practices (Liu et al., 2017).

Technology access has improved, and teachers already have easy access to

technology in their schools and classrooms. Despite this access to technology, teachers

have historically been viewed as skeptics. It has been argued that this characterization of

teachers' technology integration is compounded by teachers' negative perceptions and

beliefs of how much time it takes to implement technology and how much time it takes to

prepare and incorporate technology into the curriculum (Harrell & Bynum, 2018).

Despite the misleading portrayals, teachers who had a constructive attitude about

technology and a passion for good technology adoption would succeed in the classroom.

Both lawmakers and school leaders wanted to consider teachers' perspectives, traditions,

and convictions. Within classroom pedagogical methods, risk-taking of technologies can

be seen positively (Heath, 2017). However, it is still cautioned that instructor beliefs and

values, whether positive or negative, may significantly impact technology adoption in the

classroom (Georgiou & Ioannou, 2019). The extent to which technology is used in

classroom teaching is positively related to teachers' beliefs and values about technology.

Increased technological usage is often associated with teachers who feel that

incorporating technology into pedagogical activities has a beneficial effect on student

learning (Hur et al., 2016). Although both believe that positive ideals and principles are

beneficial when using technology in teaching, Heath (2017) asserted that although

teachers might have positive beliefs regarding technology, they lack the skills, access,

and trust in their self-efficacy to apply technology consistently in their classrooms.

Self-Efficacy. When it comes to technology use, the self-efficacy of teachers is a

critical factor in integrating technology into the classroom. Efficacy expectations

influence the amount of effort individuals would invest and the duration of their

persistence in the face of difficulties and unpleasant experiences. The more self-efficacy

one perceives, the more proactive the attempts. Those who continued to engage in

subjectively risky activities that are actually safe would accumulate corrective

experiences that support their sense of effectiveness, ultimately removing their protective

behavior. Those who prematurely abandon their coping attempts would maintain their

self-debilitating expectations and anxieties for an extended period of time (Bandura,

1977).

One-to-one technology is transforming classrooms into flexible, dynamic, and

ever-changing 21st-century learning environments. Teaching in this context necessitated

strongly defined capacities for instructional preparation and selection of appropriate

technological tools, resulting in technology alignment that promoted student preference

and the teacher's capacity to encourage digital technology integration when teaching

(Parrish & Sadera, 2020). A correlation was discovered between teachers' beliefs and

self-efficacy and how they used technology. The greater teachers' self-efficacy, the more

optimistic their views on bringing technology into their classroom (Hur et al., 2016). Due

to the broad age range of teachers in today's education system, classrooms contain diverse

technical abilities. Due to this disparity in capability, when technology is integrated into

the classroom, the success varies according to teachers' perceived selfefficacy. Qualitative

research based on student survey data using a Likert scale found that teachers need to

understand how they are seen when dealing with technology. Teachers should consider

how their technology use is regarded. They may assume they are being innovative in their

use of technology, however students, for example, may not view the use of slides as

innovative (Hoffman & Ramirez, 2018). The study suggests that even though teachers

have valued integrating technology within classrooms, it is still intermittent that

technology is integrated within the classroom consistently. Hoffman and Ramirez (2018)

conclude that based on survey data teachers had an optimistic attitude on the use of

technology yet provided inadequate access to technology for students. Learnercentered

technologies have not only improved student motivation and academic achievement, but

interactive technologies can also lead to differentiated instruction, which has resulted in

increased motivation among students. Technology is changing the philosophy of

technological and pedagogical instruction by allowing teachers to adapt their lessons to

the unique needs of students. Even though students have limited access to technology, it

has been discovered that emphasizing learner-centered technology in the classroom

increases the likelihood of technology being used in the classroom. Teachers'

expectations were influenced by this usage, which was shown to be linked to their current

technological self-efficacy as well as their professional growth in technology integration.

A mixed-methods study conducted by Hall et al. (2019) backs up this assertion, finding

that career learning focused on increasing teachers' self-efficacy in technology integration

had a strong positive relationship with technology integration. The research found that

after receiving training, instructors' views of their competence to utilize technological

tools and self-efficacy in utilizing technology in the classroom increased substantially.

Teachers having their unique needs addressed enabled the teachers to advance toward

their learning objectives despite their starting levels of teaching, academic, and

technological self-efficacy. Furthermore, the results of this mixed-methods study revealed

that the more optimistic one's expectations of a teacher's ability to integrate technology

resources into pedagogical practices, the more positive one's perceptions of the teacher's

ability to integrate technology tools into pedagogical practices. Despite the favorable

effect from perceived values and teachers' self-efficacy on technology integration

Kimmons and Hall (2016) concluded that successful technology integration requires a

supportive atmosphere and encouragement for teachers to maximize their selfefficacy and

perceived values while incorporating technology into the classroom.

Students in Grades K-5 in the 21st-century are digital natives, and teachers should

use technology's ability to connect students outside the classroom walls. This technology-

based exploration beyond the textbook engaged students and inspired them to learn the

material being taught (Dinc, 2019). Harnessing teachers' abilities to leverage technologies

creatively and efficiently in the classroom is a modern challenge. Teachers could use

technology for secretarial duties such as attendance or testing. However, there is a

disconnect between teachers' pedagogical views about technology integration and their

supposed self-efficacy to use technology in a pedagogical rather than task-oriented

fashion (Hall and Trespalacios, 2019).

Teachers' self-efficacy roles are difficult to change once they have been formed.

When it came to technology adoption, teachers who had low self-efficacy were more

resistant to increasing their knowledge of technology and were much less inclined to

integrate technology into their classroom teaching practices (Hall & Trespalacious, 2019).

However, it is possible for teachers to increase their technological skills if they have

certain expectations that are met, regardless of how confident they are in themselves (Hall

et al., 2019). According to the findings of the research, conventional PD approaches that

are one size fits all do not offer teachers with the particular information and support they

need to achieve their unique learning goals. The research suggests that the connections

between PD, teacher knowledge and beliefs, classroom practice, and student results be

examined in order to get a comprehensive picture of what makes effective PD for

teachers.

According to Hur et al. (2019) teachers' interest or self-efficacy in utilizing

technology in the classroom increased as a consequence of effective PD that was tailored

to individual teachers' needs. While school leaders' guidance did not statistically correlate

with an increase in classroom technology use, it had a direct effect on teachers' observed

self-efficacy, resulting in teachers developing increased confidence in testing students'

technology skills and delivering instructional materials to students via the use of

technology in the classroom. Teachers who believe that technology is critical for student

learning or that technology integration is a criteria for effective teaching are more likely

to include technology into their own teaching methods, the study found. Additionally,

teachers who are familiar with technology are more likely to recognize and use it in their

teaching. Along with belief and confidence, long-term PD has a positive impact on

teacher technology usage. As findings showed, after 2 years of PD, instructors with

limited abilities and confidence adapted their teaching methods to incorporate

technology.

The current age disparity for teachers in Grades K-5 classes ranges significantly.

It can vary from teachers who grew up with technology to older educators who have had

to change and study technology as adults. In classroom teaching, the instructor is the one

who determines which equipment is utilized in conjunction with pedagogical methods.

This age gap results in differing degrees of self-efficacy and the amount of technology

utilized during teaching (Hoffman & Ramirez, 2018). Regardless of the age gap, Hur et

al. (2016) discovered that the greater a teacher's perceived value of technology, the more

technology was used in the classroom and pedagogical activities.

Teachers' perceived importance of technology was closely linked to their confidence in

the utility of technology for student learning. Two factors driving a teacher's confidence

in technology were the teacher's presumed self-efficacy in technology and the availability

of suitable technology-focused professional growth. A strong association between

teachers' self-efficacy and the amount of technology adoption in the classroom was

discovered. A positive correlation related explicitly to professional learning that

addressed individual teachers' perceived shortcomings in implementing technology

resulted in teachers improving their technical self-efficacy and gaining the ability to use

technology in more pedagogical activities during classroom teaching (Hall et al., 2019).

Teachers are being challenged to rethink the ways in which supervision, planning,

instructional delivery, and assessment are structured in their classrooms as 1:1 mobile

devices become more widely available. Even though some teachers are enthusiastic about

exploring the range of opportunity that emerges with the integration of technology, not all

teachers are interested in integrating devices because of the large number of

considerations and expectations that come with them, such as changes to classroom

management and pedagogical practice. To ensure the effectiveness of these changes, it is

essential to assist teachers in developing their pedagogical, technical, and instructional

self-efficacy. According to the findings of a longituinal, corhort survey methodology

study, conducted by Hall and Trespalacios (2019) one of the most important factors

influencing the acceptability and effectiveness of technology integration to enhance

student performance is the level of preparation teachers get prior to implementing this

pedagogical change. If the aim of technology integration is to customize student learning,

then it is necessary to personalize teacher PD as well. In order to be effective in the

classroom, teacher PD must serve as an example for what is anticipated. Researchers have

discovered that teachers' self-efficacy, particularly their ability to utilize technology

integration tools and their instructional efficacy in their capacity to manage the classroom

and teaching, is a significant predictor of intentions to incorporate technology in the

classroom.

Barriers. Technology integration involves a diverse range of stakeholders. When

incorporating technologies, it is necessary to understand the participants' values, beliefs,

and perceptions; yet teachers' perspectives are often ignored when considering such

priorities and opinions (Kimmons & Hall, 2016). Proponents of existing learning

platforms often demonstrate an aversion to complete application adoption. Due to

schools' scarce infrastructure funding, integration tends to be supplementary rather than a

genuinely incorporated structure of customized learning. Another often missed hurdle is

infrastructure within classrooms and education systems (Varier et al., 2017). Until

purchasing hardware for complete implementation, school districts must prioritize future

networking requirements. If the school system's infrastructure is not equipped for

technology and the school system lacks a roadmap for how technology can be used in the

classroom, a lack of infrastructure results in a reluctance to use and usability issues within

the classroom setting (Harrell & Bynum, 2018). Before adopting 1:1 on a broad scale

within a school system, infrastructure should be addressed; Varier et al. (2017) found that

instructors valued freedom in access to material that school systems may limit due to

safety concerns. Teachers also highlighted the need for greater flexibility in district

regulations when it comes to educational content on non-district websites and

applications. Teachers regard YouTube (www.youtube.com) as an important learning

tool, but they also recognize the need to restrict inappropriate content. Some teachers

added links to other websites in their lesson preparations just to find out that they were

prohibited from using them during class. Students reported similar concerns regarding

limited content, which, when coupled with learning how to use the device, resulted in

classroom confusion.

Promoting technological adoption in K-5 classrooms is difficult due to teachers'

lack of experience and self-efficacy (Mouza et al., 2017). Expanding on this argument,

Foulger et al. (2017) reported that teachers lacked the necessary technical expertise to

integrate technology into teaching. Teachers reported feeling unable to integrate

technology efficiently when entering the classroom and feel unprepared to embed

technology effectively. Numerous factors contribute to technological acceptance

resistance, and Burke et al. (2018) identified both first order (external) and second order

(internal) barriers. These barriers are constantly changing due to rapid technological

advancements; Dinc (2019) described first-order barriers as external factors such as time,

access to assistance or instruction, and technology accessibility. On the other hand,

second-order barriers are internal factors, such as a teacher's self-efficacy, ability to

integrate technology, and understanding of the advantages of technology adoption within

classroom instruction.

Among the main barriers to technology integration were a scarcity of training

resources and equipment. Without appropriate training or resources, teachers may be

unable to adopt technology-enhanced instructional practices and may be unable of

assessing the benefits of technology integration within instruction; interestingly, these

factors have remained constant over time (Nelson et al., 2019). Internal and external

factors also had a role in the development of technical obstacles. While principals or

school officials have a far greater impact on how their schools use technology, school

leaders often struggle with technology (Heath, 2017). The United States Department of

Education (2017) agreed, saying that successful technology integration requires school

leaders to place a high priority on technology education, while Massullo (2017) added

that school administrators are unaware of teachers' challenges. These same school leaders

are technologically illiterate and incapable of effectively incorporating or understanding

new advances. When school leaders sought to provide an example of appropriate

technology use and assess the usefulness of technology in classroom instruction, Liu et al.

(2017) found that school leaders' support was a key predictor of successful technology

adoption across three recent studies.

In comparison, Massullo (2017) proposed that funding is critical but discovered

that principals were primarily uniformed in accessible technologies and technology uses.

Many were excluded from the integration process, leaving it to the students. The results

indicated that it was essential for successful implementation that school leadership was

provided to teachers to use technology within classroom instruction, and Harrell and

Bynum (2018) reported 62% of students desired to utilize technology in class but lacked

the school or instructor tools to participate in this digital learning environment outside of

the classroom. This process of personalizing teaching using interactive technologies and

materials is not without challenges. 1:1 instruction is a novel idea for both teachers and

students, and traditional pedagogical methods must adapt to the evolving demands of the

world. According to Andersson et al. (2016), teachers lacked the requisite experience to

effectively incorporate 1:1 into classroom teaching. Students' usage of social media and

games diverted teachers and students away from studying. Since the advent of 1:1, this

diversion has been consistently identified as a negative influence, and Holen et al. (2017)

concurred that distraction is a problem for principals, staff, students, and parents. When

technology is not integrated into the content, it has an inescapable effect on classroom

learning. Amid the distractions involved with technology, instructional activities can be

transformed, and classrooms that continue to incorporate technology and transition to 1:1

classrooms can impact teachers' pedagogical practices as the technology evolves (Thomas

& Edison, 2019).

Pedagogy Related to Technology Integration

The way students and teachers interact in the classroom environment evolve as

technology advances. Technology can be used to foster creativity and inventiveness,

creating an opportunity for educational reform. It is becoming more common for teachers

to integrate technology into their classes, and research has shown that integrating

technology to assist instructional preparation and planning has a greater effect on

teaching and teacher expertise than introducing technology to facilitate instruction

(Thomas & Edison, 2019). It is possible that technology integration may be a strong

instrument for promoting creativity in teaching and learning, and that the shift to digital

resources has the potential to be transformative. Through this mixed-methods study, it

was demonstrated that techniques that emphasize instructional planning with technology

had a greater impact on teaching and teacher knowledge than approaches that do not

emphasize instructional planning with technology and that teachers' PD should assist

them in choosing, developing, and implementing technology that may enhance student

learning and be integrated into successful teaching methods. It was discovered that

emphasizing planning with digital resources had a greater impact on teaching and

TPACK than other approaches. Instead, then integrating technology just for its own

purpose, technology integration must be utilized to enhance teaching and learning across

all subject areas as a consequence of this realization.

Technology has enabled a shift toward learner-centered collaborative pedagogy,

however based on an observational time study Andersson et al. (2016) found technology

requires teachers to support collaborative learning through innovative methods.

According to the results of the research, the use of 1:1 technology in the classroom

promotes cooperative group work rather than collaborative work to a greater extent than

previously thought. It was discovered that when students worked in groups, they often

divided the work cooperatively among themselves and that the only contact that occurred

was when they discussed the job at hand face-to-face over the top lids of their computers.

This suggests that the most collaborative elements of their group work activities did not

always include the use of technology to communicate with one another. In fact, the

results indicate that the laptop is more effective at facilitating cooperative group work

than at facilitating collaborative group work.

The implementation of technology aims to create a genuine learning experience

between students and teachers and open previously unattainable opportunities for

creativity and collaboration (Kuehl, 2018). While these opportunities exist, Park and

Hargis (2018) asserted that there is still a need to understand how technology can be

effectively integrated into instruction and what pedagogical practices are required to

assist teachers in implementing technology effectively in the classroom. Teachers' lessons

and instructional methods are now expected to incorporate technology. This process is

distinct from previous methods of curriculum adoption in that the number of digital

devices and internet services is growing (Thomas & Edison, 2019). Teachers experiment,

introduce, and develop modern teaching methods that incorporate technology, and the

process of learning to teach with technology is cyclical: Beliefs influenced behaviors,

which resulted in cemented or new beliefs, and teachers should incorporate technology

into classroom instruction regardless of their pedagogical beliefs (Tondeur et al., 2017).

As a result, technology should be presented in ways that are compatible with teachers'

current pedagogical methods, to appeal to their ideas and increase the likelihood that

instructors would incorporate and use technology in their classes. The findings of this

study indicate that the relationship between pedagogical beliefs and technology use is

crucially significant. This is demonstrated by participants’ wide range of beliefs and

approaches to technology use. Tondeur et al. (2017) found that many teachers do not have

a single pedagogical orientation; rather, they shift their educational views depending on

the circumstances they find themselves in at any given time. As a result of the findings,

some educational beliefs are correlated with different types of technology use. When

students access course materials electronically, teachers are frequently more receptive to

using devices in the classroom. The findings of a mixed methods study using a Likert

scale survey by Lawrence et al. (2018) demonstrated that, despite widespread use of

technology in the classroom, substituting an online version for traditional lessons is

ineffective. In fact, the frequency with which students used computers had a detrimental

effect on their academic performance, and classroom instruction must undergo a complete

pedagogical transformation.

Geer et al. (2017) added to the discussion by utilizing a multiple-setting case study

approach to arrive at their conclusions, which they elaborated upon by stating that how

teachers integrate technology into classroom education influences student performance.

Students and teachers from four metropolitan U.S. schools participated in the study,

which concluded that technology had no effect on students' academic achievement.

Rather than that, incorporating technology into the classroom required a paradigm shift in

current pedagogical practices. The use of technology alone will not result in increased

student accomplishment; rather, how teachers use and integrate these tools into their

instruction will decide their effects on learning. The incorporation of new technologies

into the classroom necessitates the modification of present pedagogical practices.

Combining emerging technologies with learner-centered pedagogies and real learning

creates new learning opportunities and the potential for increased academic achievement.

Researchers Sauers and McLeod (2018) found that technology integration had an

impact on student performance or achievement only when it allowed students and

instructors to complete learning that would not have been feasible without incorporating

technology into instructional practices. School administrators are always attempting to

raise academic achievement levels through enhancing teaching in their schools. In

education, the emphasis has shifted from subject knowledge to pedagogical expertise.

Achieving a balance between teaching methodology and subject matter expertise is

becoming more important for successful education. The TPACK framework expanded on

the previous paradigm by including the significance of technology as well as the

interactions between technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra,

2013). For successful teaching, the TPACK model emphasizes the significance of

pedagogy, subject matter knowledge, and technological knowledge, as well as the

connections between those three components. Despite the extensive use of modern

technologies in classrooms, data analysis revealed that teachers have been slow to adjust

their pedagogical techniques to accommodate technology.

However, technology integration into schools is progressing at a rapid pace and is

being applied throughout the United States. The types of technology integration and

blended learning are not so much about the device within the classroom as they are about

the shift in pedagogical methods that culminates in a learner-centered collaborative

pedagogy (Greene & Hale, 2018). Further research found that while instructional

resources influenced teachers' pedagogy, preparation for activity-based technology

integration transformed education into a more learner-centered practice (Thomas &

Edison, 2019). Nonetheless, there needed to be a balance between high-quality instruction

that incorporated technology and the quantity of technology used in a lesson. When

teachers possessed the necessary capabilities for comprehending and utilizing technology,

Voihofer et al. (2019) found teachers developed an awareness of the extent to which

technology could aid student learning. When teachers acquire a working knowledge of

technology, they develop an awareness of the subject-specific pedagogical material that

technology provides for student learning. According to the study, experienced teachers

are not always able to adapt their pedagogical expertise and skills to technologically

mediated instruction. Simply being able to utilize technology does not equate to being

able to teach with it. It was established that improved teacher technology practices were

facilitated by access to technology, administrative assistance, support personnel, and

training. Teachers integrate technology when they view it as a natural part of their lives

and see the importance of technology in enhancing learning. This offers a

recommendation for teacher educators to engage in PD activities that demonstrate how

technology may enhance their instruction, enrich their lives, and better prepare them as

teachers for their classrooms and the children they teach. Knowing how to use technology

is not synonymous with knowing how to integrate technology into instruction and is

further substantiated by the study conducted by Mills et al. (2019) whose aim was to

explore factors that impact pedagogical decision-making as teachers integrate technology

into classroom teaching and learning. The findings indicated that teachers must improve

how they promote learning opportunities to incorporate technology into their pedagogical

practice better. Teachers have a critical role in how students interact with technology in

the classroom, as they integrate technology into daily teaching instruction and learning.

The results of the study indicate that PD should include chances for teachers to reflect on

their own practice with technology integration and examine external variables that

contribute to pedagogical change in addition to PD. The teacher's pedagogy is important

to how students participate in learning. Integrating technology effectively into classroom

teaching and learning involves the development of teacher knowledge and beliefs to

facilitate the creation of experiences that complement the inquiry-based ones found in the

digital world. The teacher's pedagogy has a significant impact on how students engage in

learning. However, teachers face difficulties integrating technology into their classrooms.

As technology usage has increased over time to become ingrained in daily life,

Geer et al. (2017) discovered that educators are looking to these technologies to transform

the educational learning space. However, despite educators' desire to use technology to

enhance learning experiences, the pedagogical value of technology use has become a

point of contention. Despite the controversy, the study's findings support the importance

of integrating new technologies with learner-centered instructional pedagogies, which

enabled new opportunities for motivational learning in the classroom.

There are advantages to using technological tools that might help students become

more motivated and autonomous. Nonetheless, they are unlikely to have a considerable

influence on student learning and accomplishment unless there is a shift in pedagogical

practices. The study conducted by Geer et al. (2017) concluded that the characteristics of

the technological tools, as well as the way the teachers integrated them in the classroom,

allowed the students to utilize them for research, communication, and the creation of new

work products. There was evidence of enhanced cooperation, communication,

selfreliance/autonomy, and authenticity in the classroom because of this practice. The use

of technology alone will not result in increased student achievement; rather, it is the way

teachers adopt and integrate these technologies into their classrooms that will decide their

influence on student achievement.

Educators must be tasked with designing classrooms that foster collaboration in

both synchronous and asynchronous environments while also encouraging individual

exploration. Student engagement in education is one of the 1:1 technology initiative's

potential benefits. A critical component of integrating technology into classroom

instruction is learning how to effectively utilize technology resources so that students can

interpret material knowledge mindfully and transform it into desired outcomes (Holen et

al., 2017). However, simply knowing how to use technology is insufficient (Hur et al.,

2016). Before requiring technology integration in a classroom, it is necessary to

understand the pedagogical beliefs and teachers' perceptions of the value of technology.

Further, to assist teachers in integrating technology into their pedagogical

practices, teachers' trepidations must be acknowledged and understood to accurately

support teachers' implementation processes (Georgiou & Ioannou, 2019). Nonetheless,

teachers have recently been inundated with new and rapidly evolving technology options

for use in the classroom. Teachers should not be concerned with the tools themselves but

with how they are used instructionally to create meaningful learning experiences

(Hutchison & Woodward, 2018).

As technology advances, it enables educators to create interactive learning

experiences. This opportunity has altered how pedagogical practices can be integrated

into technology, enabling teachers to differentiate instruction for all students (Hoffmann

& Ramirez, 2018). Technology-enhanced instruction enables learning to take place

outside of the brick-and-mortar structures of traditional schools. Blended learning, which

incorporates technology into instruction, tailors learning to each student's unique needs. It

enables students to collaborate and develop critical thinking skills to develop lifelong

abilities for 21st-century learners (Greene & Hale, 2018). Currently, new modes of

instruction, assessment, presentation, and accessibility for students are constantly being

devised and developed. Parrish and Sadera (2020) found that students were reported to

use their resources more creatively to provide better access to knowledge and advance

their learning when technology was integrated into instruction.

Expanding upon this idea, Lawrence et al. (2018) agreed that students benefit and

that teachers reported a significant increase in the value added to their teaching practices

and increased the depth of student understanding. This study used quantitative and

qualitative research methods. A Likert scale survey was utilized to obtain data on teacher

and administrator views and opinions of student learning prior to, during, and after the

implementation of 1:1 technology. The research concluded that the benefit is not

determined by the device used within the classroom but by the teacher's technology

implementation into classroom instruction. During the implementation of a 1:1

computing program, the researchers sought to understand educators' perceptions of the

quality of student learning. The findings of the study revealed that the benefit is not

determined by the device used within the classroom, but by the teacher's integration of

technology into instructional strategies. According to the research, teachers feel that the

implementation of a 1:1 technology program has resulted in a moderate improvement in

student learning.

One-to-one technology integration enables learner-centered classrooms. When 1:1

initiatives are integrated into classroom instruction, the collaboration between students

and teachers increases, research indicates (Varier et al., 2018). The teacher's role shifted

from that of leader to that of facilitator, and students took on a more active role in the

learning process. Simultaneously, technology was utilized to facilitate pedagogical

approaches to learning, and Geer et al. (2017) found that as educators' roles have evolved,

they have recognized that digital technologies can be used to facilitate pedagogical

practices and foster student collaboration. However, it is argued that devices do not

transform learning or pedagogical practices in and of themselves. Even with the best

device, the device alone does not transform learning (Varier et al., 2018). However, the

teacher’s pedagogical practices and the device serve as a medium for delivering the

instruction.

Implementing technology into instruction is not a matter of day-to-day planning;

instead, it requires long-term planning over a school year in accordance with the

curriculum. Teachers must establish the purposes for incorporating digital tools into

instruction and how they would aid in student learning (Hutchison & Woodward, 2018).

However, when planning the long-term use of technology within the curriculum, teachers

must be mindful of using technology as a vehicle for incorporating pedagogical practices

and not overusing technology to the point where critical aspects of the curriculum are

overlooked (Kuehl, 2018).

Technology is an expected addition to classroom instruction in today’s

21stcentury classroom. Teachers are expected to be knowledgeable about the content they

teach. They develop technology skills and their integration into instruction to help

students improve their problem-solving and critical-thinking abilities, according to a

qualitative study in which Masullo (2017) collected data using structured data-collection

instruments. However, according to Christensen and Knezek's (2016) research, teachers

who lacked technical skills or access to technology could not effectively integrate

technology into their current pedagogical practices. Even more so, the study concluded

that teachers must receive adequate pedagogical training and a paradigm shift in their

understanding of how students learn in a 1:1 environment, as previous pedagogical

approaches are ineffective for the 21st-century learner. Teachers must integrate effective

instructional strategies with subject-matter expertise and appropriate technology, which

requires a diverse set of knowledge and skills.

Additionally, it has been suggested that subject-specific teacher knowledge may

influence teachers' ability to learn and use technology. It was discovered that selfreported

TPACK levels varied across subject levels. However, according to studies, instructional

technology is more frequently used to maintain and support existing practices than to

transform them. While there is the potential to improve teaching and learning via the use

of pedagogically sound technology, this promise has proven elusive at times. According

to the findings, teachers often employ technology to supplement rather than modify their

established methods. Teacher educators have a considerable influence on how teachers

use and do not utilize technology in the classroom. Nonetheless, teachers are not always

provided with the necessary support, training, and experiences to incorporate technology

in ways that result in enhanced academic achievement (Carpenter et al., 2020). While

technology has the potential to transform current pedagogy, Loong et al., (2018)

contended that teachers must possess both content and pedagogical knowledge to

integrate technology effectively into current pedagogical practices. Additionally,

according to the Educational Technology Plan (US Department of Education, 2017),

teachers must use technology appropriately and intelligently in the classroom.

PD Related to Technology Integration

Opportunities for PD are critical for the growth of technology integration into

classroom instruction. While the field is still developing practical strategies for PD that

promote technology integration, evidence indicated that high-quality PD includes

elements such as long-term support, just-in-time assistance, collaboration with other

teachers, opportunistic learning, alignment with school activities, and opportunities for

teachers to develop comfort with technology (Mills et al., 2019). PD assisted teachers in

selecting, preparing, and implementing technology to facilitate student learning of rich

content that can be integrated into effective pedagogical practices. While Thomas and

Edison (2019) agreed that technology could enhance teaching-learning, the study's

analysis revealed several themes, including a consistent indication of a shift away from

using technology to project or display static, or frequently textual, images toward using

visual and interactive technologies to reshape teaching practice, as well as a noticeable

shift away from teacher-centered to learner-centered instruction.

PD for teachers involving technology integration consists of small, focused

workshops focused on a particular digital tool or platform rather than on how to use the

technology to accomplish instructional goals. These workshops do not address the

difficulties that teachers may encounter when integrating technology into their classroom

instruction. Teachers' lack of formalized PD in instructional practices that incorporate

technology has resulted in research on technology integration in instruction, indicating

that educators must use pedagogically appropriate digital tools rather than simply

digitizing existing work or relying solely on engaging learners. The results suggest that

teachers should first determine their instructional objectives before adopting digital

technologies. This focus on defining the instructional objectives is aimed to guarantee

that instructors' technological utilization is consistent with their curricular objectives.

Teachers must determine the value of the digital tool, the possible obstacles produced by

the tool, and other instructional factors that may shift because of technology use, such as

assessment, physical space, and the role of the teacher (Hutchison & Woodward, 2018).

Further substantiating this recommendation, Voihofer et al. (2019) found that technology

can assist teachers in developing their practice of integrating technology into instruction,

which necessitated a well-thought-out strategy that included training, technology access,

and, in some cases, multi-level support.

Today's classrooms incorporate technology into daily instruction, but there is a

disconnect in activity engagement and school support (Jones & Dexter, 2018). Much of

the research has concentrated on PD experiences provided by districts or individual

schools. However, emerging research indicated that teachers frequently engaged in

informal learning activities that were not formally organized or supported by their schools

or districts. Teachers gained much of their PD through informal and self-directed

interactions with technology. Teachers' education was primarily informal, taking place

outside of contracted hours before or after school and on occasion during scheduled

planning times (Jones & Dexter, 2018). Teachers reported that they learned technology

from their students, indicating that students have a better grasp of the technological

devices used in the classroom than the instructors do. The teacher morphed into the

student, who was developing into an informal teacher of technology instruction.

Teachers collaborated with coworkers on-site, typically an instructional coach or

specialist who could assist with classroom and technology instructional strategies.

Although this is a formal arrangement, Jones, and Dexter (2018) conveyed that it is

frequently reported as informal communication initiated by a teacher requesting

assistance, and assistance is not provided unless requested. This assistance was

consistently rendered outside of contractual working hours. It could be as informal as

teacher-coach email communications, or it could be a lack of formal training or PD

provided to teachers on how to integrate technology into the classroom. Adding to the

conversation, Masullo's (2017) qualitative study demonstrated that inside school

facilities, teachers trust one another owing to convenience and shared understanding of

the curriculum and classroom environment, which facilitates technological integration.

Even though teachers individually assisted one another in technology integration, the

study data indicated that schools do not offer technology integration feedback via peer

coaching and schools are not customizing technology education to fit each teacher's

existing technology knowledge and classroom needs.

While integrating technology into the classroom aims to personalize student

learning, professional technology education for teachers has been uniform and not

tailored to each teacher's unique needs (Hall & Trespalacios, 2019). Corroborating the

latter, Nelson et al. (2019) adds that teachers lack the resources and training necessary to

integrate technology effectively into instruction. The primary impediment is not a scarcity

of materials or resources; instead, it fails to model appropriate pedagogical practices

when implementing technology.

PD opportunities are insufficient, with teachers failing to acquire the knowledge

they desire within the time allotted. The most effective learning occurs when teachers are

given time to collaborate, share best practices, and practice independently (Park &

Hargis, 2018). This learning must be significant and methodical in its implementation in

schools. A negative experience with technology can have a detrimental effect on a

teacher's perception of the value of technology use in the classroom (Liu, et al., 2017).

Adding to the conversation, Hall, and Rice (2019) postulated that traditional lecture-style

PD did not support the individualistic learning required to support the transition from

traditional to technology-based pedagogical practices. Instead, the way PD is delivered

around technology integration needs to change, giving teachers the ability to customize

learning based on their technical abilities and perceived technological self-efficacy.

Teachers should participate in PLCs that foster leadership development and

empower them to effect change through 1:1 technology. According to Parrish and Sadera

(2020), 1:1 educators must practice and improve their technical skills in order to engage

in discussions about 1:1 technology in their schools, and Mills et al. (2019) concurred,

concluding that teachers' PD should include opportunities for them to focus on their

pedagogical practices when integrating technology as in this mixed methods study

findings demonstrated that a change in teacher beliefs does not constitute a change in

teacher practice and PD interactions were associated with teacher values, pedagogical

strategies, and student outcomes.

A PD emphasis on TPACK aided teachers in incorporating technology specific to

their content areas (Nelson, et al., 2019). When teachers could integrate technological

practices learned in PD into their content areas, and classroom practice, Georgiou, and

Ioannou (2019) discovered they are more successful and have increased self-efficacy in

putting learning into action. However, Hall et al. (2019) argued that if PD was solely

focused on technology operation and not on pedagogical practices, teachers did not see

the value or perceived benefit of incorporating technology into classroom instruction.

While teachers need skills and knowledge to use technology effectively, the most

significant challenge was to understand that blended learning was about more than just

using the device; it was also about integrating technology into their pedagogical practices

(Greene & Hale, 2018). Yet, while pedagogical values are consistent, changing teachers'

pedagogical beliefs and behaviors typically requires long-term PD (Tondeur et al., 2017).

Colleagues can help reinforce pedagogical values and exchanging technology-related

ideas can be beneficial. Even when teachers collaborated with PLCs in a welcoming and

diverse learning environment, educational change involving integrating technology into

instruction was a unique process for each teacher.

If PD is to change teachers' values, research indicated that long-term PD is more

likely to accomplish this goal and long-term PD indicated positive results in technology

integration within pedagogical practices (Hur et al., 2016). In a quantitative analysis of

technology-focused PD and peer mentoring, Nelson et al. (2019) found that teachers who

began with low self-confidence and self-efficacy exhibited increased confidence, a more

positive perception of the value of technology in instruction, and increased use of

technology in everyday classroom instruction. Teachers must have the opportunity to

practice with technology in their subject areas, and Nelson et al. (2019) concluded that

when PD encourages teachers to practice using technology in their area of expertise or

content area of math, English language arts, science or social studies, the perceived value

of technology integration within instruction increases.

A significant barrier to successful technology implementation in classrooms is a

lack of time for PD. To ensure successful technology integration into pedagogical

practices, schools must assist educators in integrating technology into their existing

pedagogical and content knowledge (Park & Hargis, 2018). PD is necessary to boost

teachers' self-efficacy in integrating technology and to demonstrate precisely what is

expected of teachers to have criteria for successful technology integration within

instruction (Hall & Trespalacios, 2019). Teacher quality is contingent upon the

availability of opportunities for ongoing PD. With technological advancements occurring

every year, it was necessary to provide ongoing PD for teachers' perceived value and

selfefficacy to remain positive and implementation to continue (Christensen & Knezek,

2016).

Nevertheless, Hur et al. (2016) using structural equation modeling with

selfreported data contended that a teacher's self-efficacy and the use of technology in the

classroom are less important than the influence of PD on a teacher's perceived benefit of

using technology in the classroom. The purpose of this research was to investigate the

importance and connections of variables that influence technology integration, and the

results showed that teachers' knowledge and abilities in using technology should continue

to improve. However, the more significant correlation with technology integration was

PD centered on the perceived benefits of technology use.

Implications

Technology enables teachers and students to do things that previously were not

possible within the classroom environment. New learning opportunities are afforded with

the use of technology within classroom instruction. With new opportunities come needed

modifications to traditional pedagogical practices, with teachers needing to determine

how and when to implement technology into their content-specific areas (Geer et al.,

2017). Technological advancements alter viewpoints on education and learning spaces

are not restricted to traditional school classrooms. There is a potential to broaden the

learning environment via the use of technology. While technology usage alone would not

transform classroom results, it would spread learning beyond the four walls of a

classroom. Educational systems must innovate to assist teachers and students in acquiring

21st-century abilities and preparing themselves actively for the next century. To do this

successfully, teachers must reinterpret current educational pedagogical practices. They

may then offer new teaching ideas based on recent technical advancements and

pedagogical practices. Today, because of these changes, new insights, or improvements

in integrating technology within pedagogical practices undoubtedly continue to emerge,

since it is critical for schools' instructional goals to keep up with those of the emerging

world. When teachers and administrators prioritize PD, the use of digital tools in the

classroom, learning spaces, and scenario-based learning in the classroom, the desired

outcome is readily achieved (Göçen, et al., 2020).

There was a need to understand how technology may be successfully integrated

into classroom education to get teacher buy-in and an increased perception of

technology's value within instruction (Park & Hargis, 2018). Implications for prospective

project direction include the necessity for teachers to successfully incorporate technology

into their present pedagogical methods and incorporate new pedagogies for effective

technology integration to occur inside the classroom. PD training would be required to

ensure successful technology integration. The research findings were valuable in creating

new PD models that combine learner-centered instructional pedagogies with technologies

that can be applied within a teacher’s specific content area.

Summary

Technology is changing how we communicate, collaborate, and create within the

learning environment. Teachers are challenged to develop collaborative and

learnercentered daily instruction experiences (Andersson, et al., 2016). Knowing how to

use technology is no longer adequate within classroom instruction. Before expecting

technology use within classrooms, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs need to be understood,

and teachers must value the use of technology within instruction (Hur, et al., 2016).

The research problem was that teachers in Grades K-5 were not implementing the

use of technology within instruction consistently. However, by incorporating technology

into education, teachers can establish content-specific pedagogies that result in authentic

learning experiences and increased motivation and learning. According to Kuehl (2018),

there is evidence that technology usage helps engage elementary-aged students and

provides them with genuine learning experiences. With increased motivation to

understand, greater learning occurs, even if this learning is not easily quantifiable using

standardized tests. Classroom technology has the potential to facilitate authentic learning

experiences, create limitless options for creative expression, and encourage intrinsic

motivation to learn. By embracing the modern necessity of teaching children to read,

write, navigate, and interact repeatedly with computers and the internet, educators can

extend the scope of instruction by integrating technology within instruction.

The conceptual framework developed by Mishra and Koehler that underpinned

this study was TPACK. The TPACK framework adds technology to build upon the

relationships and interactions of content, pedagogy, and technology within instruction.

Therefore, the purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore the teachers’

perceptions of integrating technology consistently within classroom instruction in Grades

K-5 at the elementary school under study to understand why technology was not being

implemented within instruction consistently. The RQs for the study concerned the

perceptions of teachers who taught within a 1:1 classroom and addressed what

pedagogical practices they perceived as necessary to consistently integrate technology

within classroom instruction and how they perceived their ability to consistently integrate

technology within classroom instruction. An extensive literature review revealed that

21st-century skills, teacher self-efficacy, values and beliefs, and barriers to consistent

integration within the K-5 classroom all impact consistent technology integration. The

subsequent section includes the research design, participants, data collection, data

analysis, and potential limitations in the research study. The study findings were the basis

for a project (see Appendix A), which I introduce in Section 3.

Section 2: The Methodology

The information that is presented in Section 2 includes in-depth descriptions of

both the procedures that I followed in order to answer my research questions and the

methods that I employed to carry out my study. This section also contains a

comprehensive overview of the methods used to obtain data, the methodology used to

analyze data, and any other tools or materials that were employed in the course of my

research. This section provides evidence that supports the validity of my findings.

Qualitative Research Design and Approach

The research design was directly related to the problem. Specifically, the research

problem was that teachers in Grades K-5 at the study site were not consistently

implementing the use of technology within instruction. The purpose of this basic

qualitative study was to explore teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in

classroom instruction. I used a basic qualitative design. Qualitative research was an

effective way to obtain information on the study problem because of its human aspects.

Qualitative methods are a way to focus on why humans feel or think a certain way and

how these affect human actions in natural settings (Harwarti, 2019).

I forged a close collaboration with participants to enable them to share their

stories, which allowed me to understand their actions. To address the study problem,

participants shared perceptions and experiences through interviews. I used participants'

responses to answer the RQs, which were as follows:

RQ1: What pedagogical practices do teachers perceive as necessary to integrate

technology consistently within classroom instruction?

RQ2: How do teachers perceive their ability to integrate technology consistently

within classroom instruction?

Qualitative Tradition

The knowledge that was obtained through qualitative research was beneficial in

that it provided insight into various human characteristics. This close collaboration

approach between participants and myself was advantageous in allowing participants to

share their stories, enabling me to understand their actions. According to Merriam and

Tisdell (2016), the overall purpose of qualitative research for the researcher is to interpret

and describe people’s perceptions of their experiences and how people make sense of

these perceptions in their lives. Although I was the primary source of data collection and

analysis, I sought to convey the perspective of participants, not mine. Instead of building

a theory or focusing on culture, basic qualitative researchers seeks to understand a

process, phenomenon, or the perceptions of the participants involved (Caelli & Mill,

2002) and elicit the opinions, reflections, and actual life experiences of participants

(Percy et al., 2015).

I considered other qualitative approaches for this study, including ethnography,

grounded theory, case study, and narrative inquiry. However, I determined that these

approaches would not be a practical approach to this study. A narrative inquiry approach

was considered for this study, but this approach focuses on the linguistic, psychological,

and biographical focus on participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Merriam

and Tisdell (2016) ethnography would not be an appropriate approach because the study

and RQs were not based on my immersion as an observer at the study site. Using a

casestudy method was considered but found not to be appropriate as this study focused

solely on interviews of participants, and case studies involve multiple sources of

information such as interviews, observations, documents, and reports. Finally, grounded

theory was not an appropriate approach for this study because the purpose of this

approach is to have a theory emerge from the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), which

was not the purpose of this study.

Participants

General education teachers in Grades K-5 were appropriate participants for this

study because they provided instruction within all academic content areas and in a 1:1

classroom with a device for each student. I used purposeful sampling to select

participants. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), an assumption of this sampling

method is that the researcher wants to understand participants' perceptions. To do so, I

selected a sample that would provide me with the most information. Purposeful sampling

enabled me to choose participants with the correct attributes to appropriately answer the

RQs. This involved identifying and selecting participants who were particularly familiar

with or trained with the topic being studied (Palinkas et al., 2016).

Participants for this study came from the elementary school under study. Within

each grade-level K-5 at the study site, there are four to five general education teachers. I

excluded special education and related arts teachers from this study because they did not

have their own classrooms and because they saw multiple grade levels throughout the

day. Their classrooms or classroom settings were not equipped to be a 1:1 learning

environment. Additionally, only teachers who were fully employed by the school district

were invited to participate in the study. Employment information was obtained from the

administration team at the school under study.

Eleven participants participated in interviews for the study. I had a goal of two

participants per grade level in grades K-5. The purpose of achieving saturation, according

to Palinkas et al. (2016), is to have as many individuals as necessary to provide as much

detail to ensure that all aspects of the study can be examined. Guest et al. (2006)

emphasized that data saturation relied on many factors including number of researchers

reviewing the data, experience of the researcher, and the complexity of the data.

However, when research is conducted with the goal to understand perceptions among a

comparatively homogeneous group of participants, 12 interviews is sufficient (Guest et

al., 2006) Therefore, 11 participants provided adequate saturation despite the number of

participants being 1 less participant than discussed previously, 11 participants allowed me

to gather enough data from grades K-5 needed for this basic qualitative study.

An email that included informed consent was sent once I had received a letter of

cooperation signed by the building administrator of the site under study. Email access to

participants was requested from the building administrator, and teachers who met the

criteria to be a participant in the study were directly emailed. The email asked teachers if

they agreed to participate in the study, and I scheduled days and times to meet with

individual participants via Zoom meeting video calls due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Participants were informed that this was a learning experience, and the purpose

was to explore their perceptions of integrating technology consistently within classroom

instruction. It was essential to create a professional relationship with participants at the

study site and build trust through an initial meeting to explain the study in further detail to

clarify any questions participants may have had before conducting the interview.

Furthermore, each participant chose the date and time convenient for them to conduct the

interview. Interviews were conducted and recorded using both audio and video via the

Zoom meetings video platform to ensure participant safety due to the COVID-19

pandemic and current school safety protocols.

Protection of Participants’ Rights

I adhered to the ethical standards established by Walden University’s Institutional

Review Board. This included participants' rights, confidentiality, informed consent, and

protection from harm. Holland (2019) emphasized that participants need to be assured of

their personal information being protected and kept private. Participants were notified of

how, where, and the duration that their information would be kept on file. Keeping

participants informed of this information built a trusting, positive relationship during the

study.

Confidentiality

To protect participants’ rights, confidentiality was employed in this study. A

numerical assignment system was established as participants joined the study; they were

assigned a numerical code to keep data collection anonymous and confidential. All data

was stored in a locked filing cabinet and on a password-protected personal computer that

only I was able to access. Participants were informed that any identifying information

was removed from the data and not shared with anyone. The data is stored within these

secure locations for a minimum of 5 years and then destroyed.

Informed Consent

Participants’ rights were protected. To do so, I used informed consent. Informed

consent builds trust with participants and ensures that participants are informed about the

study's purpose. The letter of informed consent sent via email indicated the study's

purpose, explained the process for choosing study participants, identified any potential

risk, and detailed the study's required time commitment. Participants were notified that

interviews would be conducted and recorded using video via Zoom via meetings to

ensure participant safety due to the COVID-19 pandemic and current school safety

protocols. Participants were also notified that participation in the study was voluntary and

that they may choose not to participate in the study at any time by notifying me.

Protection From Harm

I did not collect data collection without approval from Walden University’s

Institutional Review Board. The approval number for this study is 02-16-22-0673021.

Ethical considerations are of critical importance, and I ensured that participants were

protected from harm through the use of informed consent and maintenance of

confidentiality throughout the research process. I will also store study data within secure

locations for a minimum of 5 years and then destroy it. I adhered to district safety

protocols for COVID-19 to protect the participants and myself. Interviews were

conducted and recorded using video via Zoom meetings video platform.

Data Collection

Two different data collection methods were employed in this study's qualitative

research: open-ended sentence stems and semistructured individual interviews. The

semistructured interview procedure for the interviews can be found in Appendix B. Using

open-ended sentence stems as a data collection method inspired honest, insightful

responses (Howell et al., 2012) and was found to generate participants’ ideas about

specific educational topics and explore participants’ social attitudes towards the topic

(Barton, 2015). The open-ended sentence stems can be found in Appendix C. This

elicitation technique was used to not only concentrate participants' responses but

encourage honesty and insight into individuals’ perceptions regarding technology

integration and pedagogy in K-5 classrooms.

Although data collection can occur in many ways, the purpose of this study

justified the use of semistructured interviews to provide insight into multiple perceptions.

Open-ended sentence stems provided honest dialogue into actual perceptions held by

participants. The use of open-ended sentence stems gave the emergence of themes

relating to teachers’ perceptions regarding technology integration and pedagogy within

K-5 education.

Data Collection Instruments

Collection instruments included an interview protocol and a set of elicitation

stems consisting of open-ended sentence questions. Data was collected while recording

the interviews with video via the Zoom meeting platform. The interview protocol is in

Appendix B. The open-ended sentence stems are found in Appendix C. I video recorded

the participant interview sessions using the Zoom meeting platform and then downloaded

the Zoom video file. I used Google Docs: Voice Typing to transcribe the session audio

file.

The data collection instruments were chosen as they were applicable to complete

an in-depth analysis of this study's basic qualitative design. I created the interview

protocol (see Appendix B) and open-ended sentence stems (see Appendix C), and an

email to send to the panel of technology integration experts in grades K-5 to obtain

permission to participate (see Appendix D) to align with this basic qualitative study. The

data collection instruments used in the research empowered participants to share their

perceptions of technology integration and pedagogy in K-5 education.

I created an interview protocol to be reviewed by a panel of subject matter

experts. The panel was made up of three district general education teachers with a

master’s degree or above from grades K-5 who are considered building level experts on

integrating technology into instruction. Their job was to ensure that the interview

protocol was an appropriate instrument for gathering the intended data and to make edits

based on any recommendations. Content validity was determined by having a panel of

experts review and evaluate data collecting tools based on their relevance and

representativeness to the design of the basic qualitative study (Almanasreh et al., 2019).

The data collection instruments used in the research empowered participants to share their

perceptions of technology integration and pedagogy in K-5 education.

The interview protocol and use of open-ended sentence stems as an elicitation

technique provided sufficiency as data collection instruments. The RQs designed for the

study addressed the teachers’ perceptions regarding technology integration and pedagogy

in K-5 education. The use of both interview questions and open-ended sentence stems

encouraged dialogue, sincerity, and insight into individuals’ perceptions. Member

checking was established, and participants were invited to respond to the data collected in

qualitative interviews. Participants were asked to respond to preliminary findings

individually via a Zoom video session, thus creating dialogue between the participant and

myself (see Lewthwaite & Nind, 2016). Table 1 shows the alignment of the RQs to the

interview questions.

Table 1

Alignment of Research Questions to Interview Questions

20. How has your ability to integrate technology consistently within

classroom instruction changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Interview question

Research question

RQ1: What pedagogical practices do

teachers perceive as necessary to

integrate technology consistently

within classroom instruction?

2. How do you normally teach? What type of instructional

approach do you take within your daily instruction. What

types of engagement strategies do you currently use

within classroom instruction?

3. How do you create collaboration between students in your

classroom?

4. How does your teaching change based on the subject you

are teaching?

5. How do you currently use technology within classroom

instruction?

6. What do you want students to be able to learn by using

technology within instruction?

7. What does technology integration mean to you?

8. How do you plan for technology integration within

elementary for the primary or intermediate classroom?

9. What is your reason to use technology within classroom

instruction?

What do you do you feel is necessary for you to successfully

use technology consistently within classroom instruction?

RQ2: How do teachers perceive their

ability to integrate technology

consistently within classroom

instruction?

11. What kind of technology integration strategies have you

learned at school and/or have you learned any technology

integration strategies from outside PDs?

12. What do you perceive as barriers or challenges to

integrating technology within instruction?

13. What are some barriers to teaching with technology in the

elementary classroom?

14. Do you see advantages for technology integration in the

elementary classroom?

15. How do you feel about planning lessons with technology?

16. How is the use of technology within instruction

preplanned?

17. What feelings do you have or have you about your ability

to integrate technology within classroom instruction?

18. How is technology used in 1:1 activities?

19. What are the pedagogy needed to complete a technology

activity?

The use of open-ended sentence stems encouraged participants to speak candidly

about their genuine perceptions and lead to the formation of themes (see Howell et al.,

2012). For each RQ, open-ended sentence stems were generated. The alignment of RQs

with open-ended sentence stems is presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Alignment of Research Questions to Open-Ended Sentence Stems

Research question Open-ended sentence stem

RQ1: What pedagogical 1.

practices do teachers perceive as

necessary to 2. integrate

technology consistently within 3.

classroom instruction?

Instructional strategies I use within my classroom

are…

The learning environment within my classroom

can be described as…

I would describe integrating technology within

classroom instruction as…

4. I use technology in my classroom when…

RQ2: How do teachers 5. perceive

their ability to integrate

technology 6. consistently within

7. classroom instruction? 8.

My ability to integrate technology within

classroom instruction consistently is… I

feel successful when…

I feel unsuccessful when…

A barrier to using technology consistently within

classroom instruction is…

9. The effect that the COVID-19 pandemic has had

on my ability to use technology consistently

within classroom instruction is…

Data Collection Processes

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and district safety protocols, the interviews were

conducted remotely using video recording via a secure password-protected meeting room

using the Zoom meeting platform, thus maintaining participant confidentiality. Although

it was vital to provide a convenient and appropriate interview setting, there was no other

choice in the interview setting due to the continuing safety concerns surrounding the

COVID-19 pandemic and for the foreseeable future. Initial data collection occurred

during 45 min to 1 hour individual semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of

11 general education teachers from the elementary school under study. The use of

semistructured interviews allowed me to use interview questions to guide the interview

through open-ended questions. Using open-ended questioning enabled participants to

narrate experiences or share perceptions but in relation to the research topic (see Johnson,

2017).

Systems for Tracking Data

All data collected was tracked and saved in a digital format. In conjunction with

the open-ended sentence stems, participant interviews were recorded using video via the

Zoom meeting platform and transcribed. The Google Docs Voice Typing feature was

used for the transcription of the interviews. A reflective journal was used to help me track

information, analyze perceptions, and gain insight into my perceptions to reflect and

minimize bias. Reflective journals are documents used to gain understandings over a

period of interactions, events, or notions (Alt & Raichel, 2020).

Systems for Tracking Emerging Understandings

A reflective journal tracked any perceptions, thoughts, or ideas as new

understandings were gathered in the research process. Alt and Raichel (2020) proposed

using an unstructured reflective journal with general prompts to provide me with the

ability to contemplate and document thoughts and questions. After each interview, I used

a reflective journal template with general prompts found in Appendix E to record

thoughts, ideas, and perceptions from the interview which assisted me later in the

research process to identify any themes or patterns within the data, as I reflected to help

minimize my bias.

Role of the Researcher

I have experience in the study setting. I have worked in the school district for 3

years, from August of 2019 to the present. During that time, my official assignment has

consisted of multiple roles, including classroom teacher, dean of students, and currently

assistant principal at a school that was not the study site. Previous to my current position,

I have taught in Colorado and Louisiana in Grades K-5 over 12 years and served as an

academic dean for 2 years. There was the possibility that potential participants were past

colleagues, as I previously was employed at the study site and my rapport with all

individuals can be described as positive and reciprocally respectful. It was important to

note that site under study had many current staff leaving at the end of the 2020-2021

academic year due to retirements, military spouse moves, and two non-renewals. As

assistant principal at another school site within the district, I am not in a supervisory or

evaluative capacity over any potential participants. My role was to conduct interviews

with participants and record and analyze the interview data. Consequently, I used an

established interview procedure, interview questions, and sentence completion stems.

My role in this basic qualitative study was to gather qualitative data from

interviews and the open-ended sentence stems. During this study, I was careful not to

carry any bias or preconceived notions forward with participants and keep my part in the

study as a learner. I engaged in data triangulation, member checking, and reflective

journaling practices as a cautionary approach to reduce any bias. My insight into personal

biases and decision-making bases throughout the study was essential to the study's

integrity. Beliefs, experiences, and my background can affect my bias (Johnson &

Chauvin, 2020).

Data Analysis

This section's information consists of a comprehensive summary of how the data

was collected and analyzed. Data analysis enabled the examination of data concerning the

study's purpose and RQs (Johnson et al., 2020). Data analysis began after all interviews,

and open-ended sentence stems being conducted, and the transcriptions of all interviews

were finalized. Interviews and open-ended sentence stem completion were video recorded

to ensure accuracy. Data analysis began by analyzing the transcriptions for emerging

themes, similar phrases, verbiage, differences in responses, and patterns that indicated

relationships. The study used the identified themes from participants' interviews to

answer the RQs based on participants’ perceptions.

Data Organization

Data organization involved the categorization or classification of information that

would be used to communicate the study results. The quality reporting of qualitative

research results was a product of maintaining data in an organized manner. Data was

transcribed using Google Docs: Voice Typing. The video file recorded from the recorded

Zoom meeting was downloaded after each participant’s interview. I used Google Docs:

Voice Typing to transcribe each participant’s interview video file, and open-ended

sentence stems activity. A deductive approach to coding was used before formal data

coding began. Deductive coding or precoding was a method used where a pre-defined list

of codes was created based on existing literature and focused the coding on issues already

identified in existing literature (Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019).

Coding Procedures

Coding is labeling a short phrase or word with a code. This was a simple operation

to identify different data segments and categorize the segments into themes (Linneberg &

Korsgaard, 2019). The coding process enabled me to generate a data inventory making

the data easily accessible, required me to revisit data creating a comprehensive review,

enabled the sorting and organization of data, ensured validity, and gave voices to the

participants' perceptions and lived experiences (see Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019). Both

deductive and inductive coding approaches were used. Deductive coding focused on a

pre-defined list of codes based on already identified issues from the literature. Inductive

coding developed codes from the data itself. Codes were generated using phrases or

words that participants used during the interviews, enabling me to remove bias and prior

understanding instead of keeping the codes parallel to the actual data (Linneberg &

Korsgaard, 2019). As I began coding, the goal was to classify the main perceptions or

ideas generated by participants’ interviews and, in the process, reduce the data by

categorizing them into themes and patterns (see Clark & Vealé, 2018).

As the coding process occurred, I developed a color-coding system to categorize

themes and patterns. Each code had a definition set to differentiate each code. This was a

cyclical process revisited throughout the analysis of data to ensure reliability and validity.

Throughout the coding, process reflections were made within my reflection journal using

my template as a guide (see Appendix E). Throughout the coding process, participants’

responses were used to begin answering the RQs. As part of the coding process, I used

the MAXQDA data analysis software, a computer data analysis program; I have obtained

a user license, which helped to select and identify codes and provided tools to organize

the data.

Themes

The themes developed from the data collected, and through the organization of

data during the data analysis process, themes emerged from condensing groups of codes

into related themes and subthemes. During the analysis process, the themes revealed were

coded again to ensure no patterns or underlying themes had been missed in the process. I

then took the data revealed through the coding process and used the information to

continue answering the RQs and connect to the TPACK and self-efficacy conceptual

frameworks, creating a diagram or figure to represent the themes and the relationships

and concepts related to the themes and used this diagram in the final reporting of the

study findings.

Evidence of Quality of the Data

Member Checking

To establish internal validity, I elicited feedback in the form of respondent

validation on initial or emerging findings from a random selection of participants

interviewed. In this process participants recognized their experience and provided

suggestions to further clarify their perspectives (see Merriam et al., 2015). Member

checking permitted the examination of both accuracy and confidentiality by participants

and ensured that the transcription was an accurate reflection of the participants’ meaning

and intent (Johnson et al., 2020).

Member checking entailed me providing data transcripts or data explanations for

comment to all or a subset of participants. This exchange was intended to bolster the

integrity of data collection and participant participation. Member checking was

performed twice over the course of the analysis (Varpio et al., 2017). To begin,

participants were invited to study their transcripts to determine if their terms correctly

reflected their intended meanings, rather than if their articulations were accurately

captured. Second, participants were invited to revisit my original or final data

assessments to verify their interpretations of the data. Member checking was used to

bolster my data collection methods, with members being asked to contribute to the

developing interpretation of the data.

Triangulation

To increase data analysis quality, triangulation was applied to increase the

reliability of the qualitative research collected (Johnson et al., 2020). Multiple methods of

data collection were employed within this study to attain triangulation. The methods in

this study included participant responses to interview questions and open-ended sentence

stems. Using two data collection sources reduced the chances of misinterpretation, which

minimized bias or error and increased data accuracy in both collection and analysis

(Johnson et al., 2020). Triangulation enabled the me to obtain a deeper understanding of

the study and afforded data collection that permitted me to better amass data to address

the RQs (Cypress, 2018).

Researcher Bias and Validity

Bias based on my background, beliefs, or experiences may have affected any part

of the research study. The validity of the study biases could have influenced decisions

and actions (Johnson et al., 2020). Consequently, the possible result of my bias and any

ethical considerations were addressed throughout the study. The study's plausible validity

threats were handled through data collection strategies of member checking,

triangulation, and reflexivity (see Cypress, 2018). Multiple data collection methods were

employed through triangulation, member checking, and reflexivity. Throughout the study

and coding process, reflections were made within my reflection journal using my

template as a guide (see Appendix E) to achieve reflexivity. Reflexivity was a continuous

process of interacting with and expressing my position and environment. Additionally, it

entailed addressing and articulating the social and cultural forces and processes that

shaped the context of the research (Barrett et al., 2020). The act of reflecting regularly

enabled me to be conscious of bias throughout the study, increasing the study's validity.

Procedure for Addressing Discrepant Cases

In searching for data, finding information that goes against the current

understanding or pattern of the discrepant research cases could have emerged and

affected the study's validity (Collins & Stockton, 2018). Using triangulation and multiple

methods to compare data, discrepant cases were easy to identify as they emerged. This

procedure provided me the opportunity to analyze why the discrepancies have occurred.

Discrepant case findings were analyzed appropriately and recorded in the research

findings. This analysis of discrepancies ensured that I could appropriately record the

study participants' findings and perceptions both within and outside the study's direct

background, increasing the validity of the data collected (see Spiers et al., 2018).

Data Analysis Results

In a small, suburban elementary school in the western United States the problem

was that teachers in Grades K-5 were not implementing the use of technology within

instruction consistently at the study site. This problem affected the elementary school

under study because developing consistent and effective pedagogical practices when

integrating technology within classroom instruction in Grades K-5 was an integral part of

a systematic instructional approach. The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to

explore the teachers’ perceptions of integrating technology consistently within classroom

instruction in Grades K-5 at the elementary school under study to understand why

technology was not being implemented within instruction consistently. By investigating

this problem, I was able to get a better understanding of the reasons why the use of

technology was inconsistent in grades K through 5. For the purpose of collecting data for

this study, I conducted semistructured one-on-one interviews with 11 general education

teachers in Grades K-5 using a 20-item protocol instrument with all open-ended questions

and nine open ended question stems. I designed the interview questions to answer the

study’s RQs. This format enabled each participant to share their perspective and

experience in a manner that was kept strictly confidential.

The questions that were used assisted to support the RQs that were related to the

challenges associated with implementing technology consistently within instruction in

grades K-5. The protocol for the interview is included in Appendix B, and open-ended

sentence stems are provided in Appendix C. The duration of each interview was no

longer than 60 min. With the permission of the participants, I video recorded the Zoom

interviews. Clarification of responses and improvement of data quality were achieved

using member checking. Data were transcribed, reviewed, categorized, and coded

following each individual interview that was conducted. The computer-assisted software

known as MaxQDA was employed to classify the interview data and generate codes from

the interviews. The findings of the study provided a summary of the responses of the

participants regarding their perspective of integrating technology consistently into

instruction in Grades K-5.

Process for Generating, Gathering, and Recording Data

Purposeful sampling was employed in the selection process. According to

Merriam and Tisdell (2016), this sampling method assumed that I wanted to understand

participants ‘perceptions I selected participants who would provide me with the most

information. Purposeful sampling enabled me to choose participants with the correct

attributes to appropriately answer the RQs. This involved identifying and selecting

participants that are particularly familiar with or trained with the topic being studied

(Palinkas et al., 2016). In order to accomplish this, inclusion criteria, also known as the

characteristics of individuals that are necessary for their selection in order to participate,

established the following parameters; to be selected the individual had to be currently

teaching general education in any grade level within the limits of kindergarten through 5th

grade; had to have a classroom equipped with 1:1 devices with one device for every

student, and access to technology within their classroom, last the individual had to be

actively employed by the study site at the time of the interview. The 11 participants who

agreed to participate in this study were all general education teachers of students in

Grades K-5 and met all the inclusion criteria.

Semistructured interviews were used to acquire the data. Each interview took

place within a time frame of 60 min. It was necessary to contact some of the participants

on occasion to explain their answers to the interview questions. According to Palinkas et

al. (2016), the goal of reaching saturation was to have as many people as were required to

offer as much detail as possible to guarantee that all elements of the study were explored.

After a total of 11 interviews, I determined that saturation had been reached because no

new information was offered to aid in answering the RQs; consequently, the process was

ended.

Coding and Theme Development

Before formal data coding began, a deductive approach was used to code.

Deductive coding or precoding was a strategy that created a predefined set of codes based

on existing literature and concentrated the coding on previously recognized concerns

(Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019). I began by creating a data inventory that made the data

easily available, facilitated the sorting and organizing of data, assured validity, and

offered participants' perspectives and lived experiences a voice (see Linneberg &

Korsgaard, 2019). I started the coding procedure by highlighting excerpts within the

transcribed text and making notes by hand on concepts that were analogous in the data.

In this method, both deductive and inductive coding approaches were employed;

following deductive coding, inductive coding was used to build codes from the data

itself. Codes were developed based on phrases and words spoken by participants during

interviews, allowing me to eliminate prejudice and preconceived notions rather than

maintaining the codes parallel to the actual data (Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019). As I

began coding, the objective was to categorize the primary perceptions or ideas created by

participants' interviews and, in the process, to compress the data by classifying them into

themes and patterns (see Clark & Vealé, 2018).

As the process of coding progressed, I devised a color-coding system to classify

themes and patterns. Each code was distinguished by a unique definition. This was a

cycle that was repeated throughout the data analysis to assure the accuracy and validity of

the data. Using my template as a guide, I recorded process reflections throughout the

coding phase in my reflection journal using my template as a guide (see Appendix E). I

then began coding with the computer-assisted application MAXQDA. Using both

strategies ensured that the process was correct and precise. The deductive and inductive

coding processes yielded 47 codes. The codes were then sorted by themes that

corresponded to the RQs. As the data was evaluated and analyzed, code groupings were

changed to guarantee proper placement within the theme and subthemes. Following a

thorough evaluation of the data, nine themes with two subthemes emerged that addressed

the study questions. Table 3 shows how each code was grouped and related to the study's

themes.

Table 3

Alignment of Codes to Themes

Code Theme

Padlet

Schoology

ALEKS

Google Suite

Platforms

Technology

Computers/laptops

Developmentally ready

Limited skills

Student learning

Reteaching

Gradual release model

Collaboration among students

Discussion boards

Integration/instructional strategies

Instructional technologies

Students and kids

Attitudes and beliefs

Opportunity

Resources

Requirements

Planning

Attitudes and beliefs

Time constraints

Barriers

Attitudes and beliefs

Time constraints

Self-efficacy concerns

Planning

Theme 1: K-5 teachers perceive that student use

of applications/computer programs is

technology integration within the classroom.

Theme 2: K-5 teachers perceive that students lack

the basic skills needed to implement technology

within instruction.

Code Theme

Requirements

Professional development

PD supports

Instructional coach

Peer resources

Teacher and student learning

Comfort level

Modeling

Access

Self-efficacy concerns

Planning

Barriers

Attitudes and beliefs Time

constraints

Comfort level

Attitudes and beliefs

PD supports

Teacher learning

Limited skills

Instructional technologies

COVID-19

Barriers

Teacher learning requirements

Theme 7: K-5 teachers believe that their school

district has provided adequate PD on how to

use digital platforms required by the school

district but have not provided PD specific to

integrating technology within instruction.

Subtheme 7: K-5 teachers believe they are

successful with technology when they

understand how technology integration works

through modeling.

Theme 8: K-5 teachers perceive time as the

biggest barrier to technology integration.

Theme 9: K-5 teachers believe they do not have

the necessary skills and knowledge needed to

appropriately integrate technology within

instruction.

Subtheme 9: K-5 teachers believe that they see

technology as a necessity within classroom

instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Note. PD = professional development.

Table 4 shows the themes and their relationship to the two RQs.

Table 4

Alignment of Themes to Research Questions

Theme Research question

Theme 1: K-5 teachers perceive that

student use of applications/computer

programs is technology integration

within the classroom.

RQ1: What pedagogical practices do

teachers perceive as necessary to

integrate technology consistently within

classroom instruction?

Theme 2: K-5 teachers perceive that

students lack the basic skills needed to

implement technology within instruction.

Theme 3: K-5 teachers spend more time

using traditional instructional strategies

for collaboration than instructional

technologies.

Theme 4: K-5 teachers believe that students

need technology skills to be successful in

the 21st-century.

Theme 5: K-5 teachers perceived that they

only need to use technology within the

classroom when required by

administration or for evaluative

purposes.

Theme 6: K-5 teachers perceived that

planning for technology occurs on an

individual level, but not consistently as

a team.

RQ2: How do teachers perceive their

ability to integrate technology

consistently within classroom

instruction?

Theme 7: K-5 teachers believe that their

school district has provided adequate PD

on how to use digital platforms required by

the school district but have not

provided PD specific to integrating

technology within instruction.

Subtheme 7: K-5 teachers believe they are

successful with technology when they

understand how technology integration works

through modeling.

Theme 8: K-5 teachers perceive time as the

biggest barrier to technology integration.

Theme 9: K-5 teachers believe they do not

have the necessary skills and knowledge

needed to appropriately integrate

technology within instruction.

Subtheme 9: K-5 teachers believe that

they see technology as a necessity

within classroom instruction due to the

COVID-19 pandemic.

Findings

In this part of the analysis, I discussed the findings of the study in terms of how

they related to the questions that were asked during the research. The interview questions

were designed to encourage participants to engage in conversations that would generate

data that provided understanding and knowledge regarding the two RQs that were

addressed in the study:

RQ1: What pedagogical practices do teachers perceive as necessary to integrate

technology consistently within classroom instruction?

RQ2: How do teachers perceive their ability to integrate technology consistently

within classroom instruction?

Nine themes with two subthemes were discovered that were in alignment with the two

RQs.

Research Question 1

RQ1 addressed the pedagogical practices teachers perceived as necessary to

integrate technology consistently within classroom instruction. There were five themes

established to answer this question. This section was organized based on the five

identified themes. Figure 2 illustrates the link between RQ1 and the five themes that

emerged.

Figure 2

Themes Related to Research Question 1

Theme 1: K-5 Teachers Perceive That Student Use of Applications/Computer

Programs Is Technology Integration Within the Classroom. Each of the eleven

interviewees stated that they use technology applications in the classroom, and the

majority stated that this is what they considered to be technology integration. Throughout

their interviews, participants mentioned that they used applications such as Schoology,

Padlet, Google Docs, Google Slides, Prodigy, Amplify, Flipgrid, Jamboard, and ALEKs

in their classes. When asked if and when technology was used during instruction, the

most common response from participants was an application being used. Participant 9,

for example, thought the software application Flipgrid was entertaining, saying, "It was

extremely fun using the application." I had never used that before, but when I did, the

kids really enjoyed recording and listening to themselves." Participant 7 added that they

try to include the technology component in any lesson where they believe they can embed

technology within the lesson, suggesting that if they are doing a group discussion project,

they will add it as a discussion post on Schoology, a digital platform provided by the

district, but the participant acknowledged that teaching directly from technology can be

difficult. Participant 1 addressed their impression of technology integration in their

classroom throughout the year by expanding on their use of the Schoology platform,

saying that they incorporate discussion questions into Schoology for students who have

the ability to answer each other on a device. The participant went on to say that they

would then leverage Google Docs to turn handwritten assignments into Google Docs,

which students would then share digitally with them. Participant 1 reported that they have

used Padlet and Jamboard for students to discuss their thoughts with one another and

continued naming software apps that they have used as independent technology activities

throughout the year.

Conversely, Participant 8 stated that in the primary classroom, they and other

teachers relied completely on the district-mandated online Wonders and MyMath

curricula, respectively, for reading and mathematics instruction. Participant 8 explained

that the district provides an overview of the online components available through the

curriculum and that this is the only technology they integrate into instruction if time

allows students to finish it independently. While each of these teachers was able to

emphasize the technology used in their classrooms, they were also able to discuss the

students' use of applications and technology during classroom instruction, which will be

explored in subsequent themes.

Theme 2: K-5 Teachers Perceive Those Students Lack the Basic Skills

Needed to Implement Technology Within Instruction. Many participants shared a

surprising perception that they were not successful in integrating technology into the

classroom due to their students' lack of abilities or the teacher's perceived belief that

students were not developmentally ready. According to Participant 4, "Some of them

don't even have the dexterity or physical capacity, in my opinion, it is like they are not

developmentally ready to be able to run a mouse and type keys." Participant 2 added to

this statement by saying that when it comes to instructional strategies, you have to

consider the students' skill levels, explaining that "Some of those technology concepts,

like finding an array for a Google slide, they [students] have to have that foundational

knowledge before they can necessarily apply those skills with finding their own pictures

or evaluating solutions for those contexts." Participant 2 reported that one of the most

significant challenges in the elementary classroom is students' lack of awareness of

technology systems and typing skills. Other participants shared similar beliefs that

embedding technology with students is more difficult and that it is difficult for students to

use software applications when they lack the basic skill sets to navigate the devices.

Participant 4 differed from the others in believing that the students could only gain

the necessary skills through practice and the teacher determining the appropriateness of

the technology. They explained that as teachers, they must determine if the technology is

age and developmentally appropriate before assigning it or attempting to embed it into

the lesson, but they must also give students the opportunity to get on technology and try it

out even if they make mistakes, implying that if students do not practice and make

mistakes, they will not be able to learn and acquire the skills required to use technology

within the classroom. Participant 5 provided another unique perspective from the primary

grades when discussing students' ability to use technology. The role of teachers in the

primary grades is in creating the foundation students need before a teacher can

successfully integrate technology into their instruction, stating, "I am laying a foundation

where integration next year might be a little bit easier as they go up, just like we teach

reading where we have laid a foundation for the upper grades."

The participants in the study reported that when students were able to effectively

use technology, they were more willing to integrate technology into lessons. Additionally,

teachers evaluated their own technology integration self-efficacy to be connected to

students' levels of technological proficiency. Participants believed that technology could

not be introduced into instruction via pedagogical practices until students were

developmentally ready to manage computer hardware and had the physical dexterity to

operate the computer.

Theme 3: K-5 Teachers Spend More Time Using Traditional Instructional

Strategies for Collaboration Than Instructional Technologies. Throughout the course

of the interviews, it became abundantly clear that the teachers at the site of the study

employ a variety of conventional traditional instructional strategies in grades K through

5. The gradual release model was mentioned in each interview as the standard method of

course delivery, and Participant 3 said, “I use it with everything, the gradual release

method is used in reading, writing, and math.” Participant 10 shared that the gradual

release model is a building-wide expectation across grade levels. Other traditional

instructional strategies for collaboration, such as think-pair-share, QSSSA-Question,

Signal, Stems, Share, Assess (a teaching strategy for structured discussion), four corners,

whiteboard routines, and gallery walks, were also brought up for general discussion

among all the participants. Participant 1 described how they build a collaborative culture

in their classroom by organizing student groups for discussions and activities. They

explained that differentiated groups are formed based on the activity or content, and

groups can range from mixed-ability groups of students to heterogeneous groups based on

their students' academic needs, adding that on occasion, they will group their identified

gifted and talented students together so they can extend their learning while collaborating

together.

Every interviewee mentioned adopting collaboration tactics in their instruction

across several content areas, but only two participants elaborated on how they had

students collaborate using technology. Participant 11 explained how they try to use

technology for collaboration, but in general, they rely on traditional teaching practices to

facilitate collaboration in their classroom, explaining, "I normally incorporate whiteboard

routines or have students use butcher paper where they are answering questions altogether

and on occasion, we will use technology." Participant 1 went on to say that they have

started embedding Disney video shorts into the Schoology platform and will generate

discussion questions connected with the video or have students interact on a Google slide.

However, they considered that this was more difficult than standard collaborative

practices or instructional routines within the classroom, and they often applied traditional

instructional tactics for collaboration unless planned in advance. Participant 2 shared

similar strategies as Participant 11 explaining “ I do typically more of high-medium,

high- low partnerships. I also have my kids in groups again we have tables in pods with

different partnerships." Participant 2 further described that with technology, their class

does collaborate through online discussion boards through the Schoology platform and

that students will respond to each other digitally when time permits.

Throughout the interview process participants continued mentioning applications

or programs as examples of how technology was being integrated into classrooms as an

instructional strategy; and, Participant 1 shared their belief in how technology could be

used to enhance learning stating, “instead of doing like a turn and talk, I might do a

Padlet or a Jamboard for kids to engage because you need that engagement piece to keep

students involved in the discussion”. Participants agreed that teachers needed

instructional approaches to educate students, and that technology should be taught and

used in the classroom on a regular basis. Although participants agreed that technology

should be taught and used in the classroom on a regular basis for collaboration, they still

believed that traditional instructional strategies were easier and did not take as much time

to plan as technology-based collaboration.

Theme 4: K-5 Teachers Believe That Students Need Technology Skills to Be

Successful in the 21st-century. The development of technology has brought about

changes in a great many facets of day-to-day existence. The development of technology

has brought about changes to the way people live and read, one of which was the

educational system. The modern classroom has been transformed into an environment

that cannot be equated with the traditional classroom of the past because of the

widespread availability of technological instruments in a variety of formats. The skill set

required of the future workforce has had to evolve in response to advances in technology

Participant 2 shared this sentiment, “technology integration for me is important for

helping students get 21st-century skills and become citizens in this world where they

have to use technology.” Participant 4 stated that it is the responsibility of teachers to

teach students proper digital citizenship and establish a sense of digital responsibility. All

interviewees stated a desire for students to be able to use technology tools to learn in a

number of ways in order to help them improve their learning and knowledge, as well as to

inspire them and provide them with a tool to help drive their lives in the future.

During the interviews, it was discovered that Participant 4 was an early user of

new technologies and was a strong champion for the use of technology in the classroom.

This participant gave the following insight on the necessity for students to have skills

relevant to the 21st-century explaining that, “21st-century skills are huge, it is basically

starting out the basics of having them [students] be able to work on the computer and it

will just give them that opportunity to access the information and be able to use that

information when existing during the 21st-century.” Participant 1 also believed that

students needed to be equipped with technology skill sets for the twenty-first century in

order to be successful in the later stages of their lives. This participant went on to say that

even though they were not comfortable with technology, they needed to be able to teach it

to their students stating "I am not super comfortable with technology. It is an

uncomfortable area for me, but I know that technology is what kids need in the

21stcentury and is what they need to be successful in high school, college, and even in

their adult world." The majority of the study participants agreed that technology is just a

part of students' lives and that it is their obligation as educators to teach them how to use

technology and become proficient in the digital world. Participant 7 had the additional

insight that students needed more than just the ability to demonstrate knowledge through

paper and pencil but needed to be prepared to use technology to have the option to type or

use different applications to complete work explaining that they as an educator wants

students to have a positive experience with the technology asserting that students will use

technology throughout their lives stating, “ I do not want learning to consist solely of

writing things down with a pen; I want students to have opportunities to express their

creativity through the use of a computer, where they discover something that piques their

interest.”

When discussing the fundamental abilities that are required to even operate a

computer, participant 8 provided further understanding of the skills they believe children

need to have. It was brought up several times by the majority of participants, and it was

generally agreed upon, that students need to have a basic understanding of technology

early on in their education, in the primary years, in order to be able to build on those

skills to more advanced levels in the intermediate and secondary levels of education, and

most importantly, in life. Participant 8 expressed their conviction by explaining that

students need to use technology because that is where the world is heading and that

students need to know how technology works, and how to use it to be successful going

forward because that is where we are in the current society. Participants 5 and 6 each

provided a unique perspective on what they wanted their students to be able to

accomplish with the support of technology in a world that requires 21st-century skills.

Participant 5 expressed a desire for students to have access to information and know

where to go to find outside resources and conduct research outside of the classroom

walls, explaining, "I think with so much at our fingertips, it is important for them

[students] to know, but I also want them to know how to do it responsibly, and how to

check sources." Participant 6 held the same perspective as participant 5 but brought a new

dimension to the discussion by expressing the desire that students will become familiar

enough with technology to feel confident in their ability to use it effectively and advocate

for their own educational needs. Participant 6 stated, "I want kids to feel safe using it

[technology] and having the kids use it to advance their education, to take charge of their

learning, and to be able to pick subjects that they want to learn about." An interesting

addition to this conversation was made by Participant 9, who talked about their own

personal experience and how their perspective has changed over the years, going from

one in which they did not see a use for technology to one in which they believe that

students need to have these technological skills to be successful in the 21st-century

explaining that “there is technology in every aspect of our life. And I know as a teacher, I

struggle with it, because I was never taught it.” Participants throughout the study stressed

the importance of students knowing how to use a computer on a basic level by third grade

when they must begin state testing, which is now entirely digital.

Participant 10 revealed additional information that in their district there are

students coming from adverse situations explaining, “We have got kids that have never

left this area in their entire life. And they are probably likely never going to. So, when we

bring in technology that gives them access to a world that they would not necessarily get

otherwise.” This participant shared their worries that being digitally illiterate will be a

crippling barrier to future achievement and that technology will be necessary to be a

contributing citizen in our current and future societies. However, Participant 11 offered a

different viewpoint, stating that "Technology is overused and really pushed, especially in

the elementary level; instead, students need to be doing hands-on activities." Participant

11 acknowledged that students need to use technology but asserted that the social element

of education is also just as important and that learning how to speak, work with your

peers, and collaborate is essential. They believed that for students to be successful as

well-rounded citizens, they need to be talking and working with peers instead of sitting in

front of a screen.

Although all of the participants acknowledged that technology should be

incorporated in some manner within classroom instruction to prepare students for the

21st-century, they lacked the training and support to ensure they could plan and

incorporate technology within their instruction consistently. This has discouraged many

of the participants from attempting to integrate technology within their instruction as they

perceive the barriers and lack of knowledge and ability to be too great.

Theme 5: K-5 Teachers Perceive That They Only Need to Use Technology

Within the Classroom When Required by Administration or for Evaluative

Purposes. When participants were asked how they planned to use technology in their

everyday instruction, a trend emerged in the responses. It was repeatedly noted that the

teacher state evaluation rubric was the primary reason that technology was planned, to

have a box marked on their teacher rubric, when administration would be observing.

Participants also mentioned that this was an area that was rated lower on their rubric and

that they are actively attempting to improve it by integrating more technology to raise

their overall evaluation score. Participant 6 shared, “Basically when I think of

technology, that is the main thing that I am trying to get better at on my rubric.”

Participant 11, elaborated and provided a more personal experience explaining, “It is

always on my rubric, the lowest point, my lowest area, I would say that my competence

for integrating technology is just lower.” Participant 11 attributed technology to being

the lowest area on their rubric due to the available PD asserting that, “you leave PD

knowing that things exist, and someone showed you something really cool with it, but

you do not know how to go back into your own classroom and implement it and how to

use it proficiently.”

During the interviews all participants expressed specific concerns about their own

perceived abilities in being able to successfully integrate technology within instruction

and be appropriately rated on a state educator rubric, however, Participant 3 voiced their

unhappiness with the process of incorporating technology into the classroom and talked

about how the skills of students might have affected the overall scores that teachers

receive on the rubric explaining “It hurts us teachers’ scores if students are not as quick or

as fluent on the computer.” Multiple participants shared their opinions that they did not

believe kids possessed the appropriate skills to use technology, as discussed earlier in

theme 2 and that teachers only used the technology when it was necessary for evaluative,

district, or school-mandated purposes.

Other participants stated that they simply use the district-supplied online

curriculum to guarantee that students are using technology as previously outlined in

theme 1. Participants discussed a variety of digital platforms for quickly incorporating

technology to meet the teacher evaluation rubric's criteria. Schoology was mentioned by

each participant as an easy approach to integrating technology into daily education by

publishing assignments and having students comment on discussion board topics.

Participant 7 described how the Schoology platform was used to make it simple to use

technology when needed. They explained that they just use Schoology, make a few

questions a digital discussion post, and attempt to have students use the digital platform

to ensure that students are getting exposure to some digital components adding, “It is just

hard to teach straight from the technology.” Participants reported that technology was

frequently integrated while being evaluated by administration or when mandated at the

district or school level, despite students requiring continuous use of technology in

education to develop 21st-century skills.

Research Question 2

RQ2 addressed how teachers perceived their ability to integrate technology

consistently within classroom instruction. There were four themes and two subthemes

established to answer this question. This section was organized based on the four

identified themes and two subthemes. Figure 3 illustrates the link between RQ2 and the

four new themes and two subthemes that emerged.

Figure 3

Themes and Subthemes Related to Research Question 2

Theme 6: K-5 Teachers Perceive That Planning for Technology Occurs on an

Individual Level, but Not Consistently as a Team. During the course of the interviews,

the participants expressed the perception that as teams, they prepare lessons as grade level

teams, keeping instructional goals in mind and integrating state standards in a consistent

manner. On the other hand, when participants were asked how they plan as a group for

the integration of technology, the general response was that preparing for technology was

an individual undertaking. Even while participants in the study believed that planning for

technology was an individual undertaking, they also shared the sentiment that planning

for technology was necessary regardless of whether it was done by the team or by the

individual. A further explanation of the significance of planning for technology was

provided by Participant 1, who noted that planning is essential adding that if students do

not know their logins or the basic operations of the device time will run out due to

students’ inability to access the technology efficiently and effectively. Several

participants concurred that planning is key to integrating technology within the classroom

successfully. A similar attitude was expressed by Participant 10 on the significance of

planning technology integration into classes; however, this participant offered a unique

point of view regarding the individual planning component. They discussed the

significance of identifying the purpose of a lesson and determining whether or not the

corresponding technology is appropriate for the lesson. They were cautious to state that

they used technology on a daily basis inside the classroom because they explained that if

the technology does not serve a purpose within the lesson, then it is not a suitable tool to

use. Additionally, Participant 10 elaborated on the necessity of having a backup plan in

the event that the technology fails while the lesson was being taught by explaining that it

is essential for teachers to prepare for the unavoidable, which is the chance that

technological systems will eventually have errors occur or network systems can go down.

To avoid conducting a filler activity and to better prepare the kids for the possibility that

the technology they are using could not function properly, they believed that it is essential

to be intentional and to create backup plans in advance when planning technology into a

lesson.

Participants all shared ways in which they individually plan for technology and

some provided more insight into the emotions that can manifest when having to plan

alone for technology. Participant 2 offered that when planning by themselves it is

challenging and perhaps more intimidating and thought that “If it were more of a team

collaboration then it probably would not be as scary for people and would not take as

much time planning because then that workload is shared.” Participant 1 shared similar

perceptions on the emotions that planning for technology on an individual level induces

explaining, "I personally feel that it gives me a bit of anxiety because I am not super

strong when it comes to technology." Other participants expressed similar thoughts, and

the overall perception presented was that when it comes to preplanning and integrating

technology, the focus is mostly on them as individuals, followed by sharing what they

have attempted to do with others. Many participants also stated that teachers working and

preparing technology together would help students more since students would have more

opportunities to use the technology if it was incorporated into the classroom. They

proposed that if team planning took place, there would be more discussion boards or

assignments on Schoology because the effort would be divided across a grade level team

and teachers would benefit from the collaboration.

During the interviews participants openly revealed that there was little to no

technology preparation inside teams and that while some teachers did prepare for

technology, it was on a case-by-case basis of who felt comfortable enough to try outside

of their team. Participant 5 shared that they do not plan for technology as a team either

and expressed the negative emotions that are induced when attempting to plan for

technology as a team expressing, “I am more adventurous when integrating technology

and using technology in different ways and see the value of technology…the impact it has

on me as a teacher and everything, I have to plan for then is a challenge.” Many

participants indicated that planning for technology as a team involves the team discussing

which program students will independently access, and they gave examples such as

Amplify, a digital reading program; ALEKs, a digital math program; or any software

each teacher's students are able to independently access. Participants stated that as a

teacher, it is up to the teacher to select which technologies to deploy and which programs

or applications to use within the classroom. This decision-making authority rests solely

with the teacher independently and is not a team decision. Participant 10 stated that they

believe that there is not a lot of understanding of how to use technology among the

teachers at the study site. They also shared the following regarding technology being

planned in teams, saying, "I think that is an area of opportunity to make sure that

technology is consistent and to make sure that it is something in the forefront of our

mind." Participant 8 shared their perceptions about planning for technology both from an

independent perspective and a team perspective sharing on an individual level that it is

easier for them to incorporate technology within their instruction explaining, " I have

never not had technology in my planning experiences. And so, I cannot fully say that I

would feel confident planning a lesson with just a notebook, I think that would be hard."

Participant 8 continued to share their team's experience with technology planning

explaining that each week during PLC their team plans out lessons starting with the

standards and intentionally plan out for the week for content and traditional instruction,

and then they independently plan for technology if they want to embed it within their own

classroom and that as a team they do not plan or collaborate on any technology

integration together.

It was clear through the interviews that participants planned during PLCs for the

subject matter, however, no participants reported planning instruction as a team to embed

appropriate technology that would enhance the instruction. Veteran teachers explained

that prior to deciding what technology to use, they believe that teachers first need to

consider the "what" and "how" of the lesson. Participant 8 also provided additional

insights regarding the integration of technology in their classroom. This participant

shared their beliefs that technology integration was applied in certain subjects more than

others and that their skills were determined by the subject or content that they were

teaching, explaining, “I find myself using more technology, in the morning during ELA.

In math, I feel like math is where I struggle the most and finding technology integration

for students’ math.” Throughout the interviews, teachers expressed the strong

collaboration that occurs within grade level PLC planning times in relation to standards

and content when planning instruction. On the other hand, it was evident that there is

little to no planning amongst grade level teams on how to embed technology within their

instruction, and that collaboration on how to integrate technology within instruction

specific to each content area is a need at the study site.

Theme 7: K-5 Teachers Believe That Their School District Has Provided

Adequate PD on How to Use Required Digital Platforms but Has Not Provided PD

Specific to Integrating Technology Within Instruction. During the interviews,

participants stated that their local school district did an exceptional job of providing

opportunities for PD in a wide variety of curricular areas, including technology. Even

though participants stated that the district offers PD on how to use the digital platforms

that are owned and operated by the district, it became clear that the district does not offer

PD that was specifically tailored to the incorporation of technology into classroom

instruction. Participant 3 had a tough time even remembering when a PD on technology

had been offered sharing, “I think that school-based PDs have been the only thing I can

think of where I have received training on technology, but where other people

[coworkers] have shown me.” Participant 3 acknowledged that when the district adopted

a new curriculum, Wonders [reading curriculum] a PD trainer came to PLCs and showed

teams where to find different resources online with the curriculum. Participant 2 shared

similar information and explained that the school and district have been provided with PD

on digital platforms, but no strategies or training on how to incorporate the technology

within instruction. They reported that there is a limited amount of what is shared for

different strategies to collaborate or engage students with those online components. The

majority of the participants who were interviewed believed that most of their skills with

technology had been based on their own personal experiences of trial and error, or

hearing about a new technology tool or strategy, and then testing it out on their own to

see if it worked within the context of their classroom instruction.

Participant 5 gave a similar perspective but added extra insight into social media

and finding ideas on social media platforms from other teachers around the country and

then attempting to integrate technology through trial and error. Participant 5 shared, “I do

not feel we get a ton of support, integrating technology into instruction, we go to training

but on curriculum resources and standards implementation. I feel some of my ideas come

from seeing things on social media.” Participants did not think that there are enough PD

options available or resources at the school level on how to use technology within

instruction. Many participants echoed this concern and reported that they go to outside

sources such as social media and follow other teachers across the nation to gain ideas on

how to integrate technology into their classrooms. Other participants shared that they

learn differently and that when they have attended PD they have not learned from the

training, but instead from other teachers showing them at their own pace. For example,

Participant 1 explained that although they have attended PD the PD courses are not

differentiated and that they are not always able to keep up with the pace of the learning,

other participants echoed this concern where two participants who are early adopters of

technology shared that many of the resources taught they are familiar with and they

would like more challenging training, whereas many of the participants explained that

most of the training has been too fast paced with Participant 1 sharing, “I need to see

other educators using it to teach me, then I think, oh, I can maybe learn how to use that.

So that has been, how I have learned the best way.” The majority of participants believed

that in order for them to better understand and increase their level of self-efficacy, they

either needed to be provided with a model of the technology being used within instruction

or be able to have time to practice using the technology tool or strategy with colleagues in

a collaborative space.

However, Participant 8 offered a slightly different viewpoint, stating that one of

the obstacles was a lack of PD on how to integrate technology as well as how to work the

students' devices. The participant explained, "A barrier, is not knowing the students' end

of things and how I can incorporate some of those things for their computers, I need PD

on how to work the students' computers. I have not gotten that yet."

During the interviews, participants explained that they know how to scan QR

codes, and navigate students to different locations online, but many participants asserted

that they are not well versed in the Chromebook technology for students and do not know

how assignments appear to students in the student version and can only see the teacher

version and participants expressed a desire for PD in learning how to use technology from

the student’s perspective.

Subtheme 7: K-5 Teachers Believe They Are Successful With Technology

When They Understand How Technology Integration Works Through Modeling.

During the interviews, a subtheme emerged as participants discussed what the term

"success" meant to them in a number of contexts, as well as how effective they thought

they were in incorporating technology in the classroom. Participants frequently stated

that, while they believe they could be effective if they understood how technology

integration worked through examples and modeling, they do not receive support in

learning how to integrate technology within instruction. This is despite participants’

belief they could be successful if they knew how to integrate technology into instruction.

According to Participant 5 teachers at the study site only receive training on online

resources connected to the district-provided curriculum. Additionally, other participants

revealed that they feel successful when they have seen other teachers model how to use

technology within instruction whether through social media, learning walks, or peer

observations. Participant 7 shared that because they are a newer teacher it was difficult

for them to envision what successful technology integration looks like within classroom

instruction and explained, “Involving technology, is a bit overwhelming at times, I think

that just seeing everyone else has different ideas of stuff they already have implemented

in their classrooms that work, I can then envision that in my own class.”

Even so, Participant 9 added to the discussion by explaining how seeing

technology integrated within instruction is beneficial and helpful in the learning process,

and that after seeing technology demonstrated, they need to practice it as well, otherwise,

they will not be successful despite the modeling that was observed, stating, "I have to

understand something before I introduce it to them [students], and then I can walk them

[students] through step by step." Participant 9 provided further clarification by stating that

if they, as the teacher, become frustrated with the technology, they will not be able to use

it with students because, in order to function as the facilitator of instruction, they are

required to have the self-efficacy and ability to appropriately demonstrate the activity to

students. Other participants discussed the advantages of observing the integration of

technology through modeling but acknowledged that they did not achieve success with

the integration of technology until they tried it themselves inside the classroom setting.

Participant 2 added that after watching others implement technology within the

classroom, “It takes time training myself on the different platforms training for the kids of

how to work with it, so knowing that I cannot give up on it too quickly, but it has to take

more time to develop.”

Participant 4 provided a different point of view regarding the necessary modeling

that was required for success discussing the necessity of filming yourself and watching

yourself model the lesson to gain a deeper comprehension of how to modify your current

pedagogical practices explaining, “Having that opportunity to video myself and get

feedback, I think that is how I feel most successful and then having an opportunity to

review so I can go back and figure out what my strengths or weaknesses are.” Further

analysis of the data demonstrated that it was common practice for participants in the

study to take part in unofficial learning activities that were neither formally organized nor

supported by the school or district. The majority of the teachers' opportunities for PD

came in the form of unstructured, self-directed encounters with various forms of

technology.

Theme 8: K-5 Teachers Perceive Time as the Biggest Barrier to Technology

Integration. Participants were asked what they perceived as their biggest barrier to

integrating technology within their instruction. Other than the previously discussed lack

of PD available it was interesting to note that more than one participant mentioned that

they consider time to be the most significant barrier faced by other colleagues, but they

did not necessarily identify it as their own barrier. Participant 10 shared their perspective

in relation to what they have overheard other colleagues in the building say as the most

significant barrier, “I think the one I hear is time, the time that it takes to set the

technology up, and the intentionality it takes to plan. I think it is also that lack of

knowledge or that lack of capacity.” Participant 10 asserted that they think the time

barrier is due to a lack of confidence in using the technology and believes that if teachers

can build up that capacity to have confidence, it will reduce time being a barrier to

teachers at the study site. Participant 7 similarly shared their take on the biggest barrier

being time due to students not being familiar with the technology which then requires

them as the teacher to model the technology for the students and then instructional time is

lost. On the other hand, Participant 2 stated that time was the most difficult barrier, but

rather than providing what they perceived to be the opinion of their colleagues, they

provided their own perspective on how time was the most difficult barrier in the way of

integrating technology into their instruction and shared their opinion on how PDs do not

allow for enough practice time for teachers. They specified that the main barriers or

challenges first start with the internet quality or whether the students’ computers are

working and functioning properly but perceived that with PDs technology is introduced

and explained that the PD is not followed up on. They clarified that new technology tools

or strategies are presented in a PD but are quickly shown with a minimal model and no

time allocated for teachers to practice using the technology, and no discussion or support

on how to appropriately integrate the new technology into instruction.

Throughout the course of the interviews, the subject of time came up repeatedly as

a barrier, and the overall perception of the participants in the interview was that the most

significant challenge was simply finding the time to explore the available technology

resources and test them. Another challenge is just finding the time in the day to not only

spend the time pre-teaching in order for the students to be able to use the technology, but

also to ensure that there was time to continue integrating the technology once it had been

introduced. Several participants explained this is because teachers have to take time away

from other things in order to do that. If teachers are given the time during PD and PLCs

to collaborate and practice using technology participants believed they would be able to

better implement technology within their classroom instruction with some participants

suggesting that the technology tools and strategies could replace some traditional

instructional strategies if they had the appropriate time to learn and implement the skills.

Theme 9: K-5 Teachers Believe They Do Not Have the Necessary Skills and

Knowledge Needed to Appropriately Integrate Technology Within Instruction.

During the interviews, participants identified the skills and knowledge that they felt they

lacked in order to be able to effectively integrate technology into their classroom

instruction. Participants also discussed the pedagogical practices that teachers perceived

to be necessary in order to effectively integrate technology into classroom instruction.

Participant 2 offered areas that they felt unsuccessful in both knowledge and skills

voicing, “I feel unsuccessful when the internet is not working. Or if I do not have the

visual side of what it looks like from the student perspective.” They voiced their concern

that they have experienced feelings of inadequacy whenever they have attempted new

technologies and tools or strategies for the first time, or whenever they have practiced

using different digital platforms. Other participants had similar concerns that they have

not had sufficient time to practice with the technology before introducing it to the

students, and that the introduction of new technology took too much time because it

required the teacher to demonstrate to the students how to use the new technology.

Participant 1 described their personal struggles and perceived lack of self-efficacy

sharing, “I feel unsuccessful when things do not go well. When there is a glitch, that I

cannot figure out, or I do not understand what I did wrong.” Participant 11 added to this

conversation stating, “I feel like sometimes we get pushed new programs and we do not

have the training that we need, and then the lesson is consumed with troubleshooting.”

Additionally, Participant 3 reported anxieties that their perceived lack of skills was

blocking them from having the ability to integrate technology within instruction stating,

“I do not have the skills because of myself, and I do not know how to get past that. It is

this mental block, and I do not know why I am scared, but technology scares me.”

Participant 9 spoke in detail about how their lack of skills using technology led to

unsuccessful attempts at technology integration explaining, “Students get frustrated, I get

frustrated, and I quit trying to use technology altogether.” Nonetheless, during the

interviews, participants clarified the skills they perceived were needed, asserting that

teachers must understand the technology before introducing it to students, that they must

ensure that the programs or technology tools are correctly loaded and that they must be

able to walk students step by step in how to use the technology correctly before there is a

benefit to the instruction. Despite participants noting a lack of skills or ability to integrate

technology in instruction, many participants interviewed described skills that they

perceived were crucial to successfully integrate technology within instruction

consistently.

During the interviews, both veteran and inexperienced teachers expressed a need

for PD in order to manage what students see on their devices. Participants expressed

worry that they have had no training on what the students' devices are showing when they

are still learning what the technology should look like on their devices. Another worry

expressed by inexperienced teachers was a lack of ability to set clear, strong expectations

about the use of technology in class. Veteran teachers in the study expressed similar

concerns about managing devices and expectations in class. They reported a need for PD

to understand the technology in order to set clear expectations and boundaries with

students, as well as believing that teachers need PD on how to use both teacher and

student devices before having the confidence and skillset to introduce to students during

instruction.

Subtheme 9: K-5 Teachers Believe That They See Technology as a Necessity

Within Classroom Instruction Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Every participant

interviewed for this survey stated that the COVID-19 epidemic had changed the way they

taught in some way. The general consensus was that technology was now a requirement

in the classroom rather than a luxury to be used on occasion. Due to the COVID-19

pandemic in March 2020, the world of education was forced to go virtual. Participants in

the study were forced to use technology with little time to prepare as a result of this

unexpected turn of events. This subtheme emerged as participants' reactions and

perceptions reflected the influence of the 2020 forced shift to online education and the

subsequent gradual return to in-person learning and teachers now having 1:1 digital

devices in every classroom. Participant 11 shared a sentiment that was common amongst

all participants stating, “Prior to COVID, I did not use any technology and since then I

now do use technology more because of COVID-19.” Further elaborating on what many

other participants shared Participant 3 explained how their use of technology changed due

to COVID-19 revealing, “It has changed my technology ability because I had to, that is

what we had to use, and I was forced to use it. Now that we are back in the classroom, all

the kids have a computer.” Participant 1 went more in-depth into the answer explaining

how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed their perception of the necessity of technology

“COVID-19 has changed my embedding of technology because I have realized that there

is going to be a huge need for students to be familiar with technology because you never

know when this pandemic could send everybody back into our homes.” All participants

believed that due to the pandemic students need to be familiar with technology and how

to receive instruction through a device that they may or may not be familiar with. Many

participants explained that being forced to use technology during the pandemic has

required them to be more active in building their own technological skills. Participant 1

added, “It forced me, to change how I view education.

Technology could be a very necessary need.”

Participants 4 and 5 shared similar views of being hesitant and feeling forced to

use technology, however, broadened the conversation by detailing the innovative ideas,

technologies, and resources that were made available during the pandemic with

Participant 4 being candid in their response and perceptions revealing, “It has made it

where we have had to use technology, whether you like it or not, you have basically had

to get on board because this is what is happening.” Participant 5 reported, “I think of

education, and the need for having technology in the schools, and even devices one on

one, I think we have known how important technology is and we must be prepared for

situations like a pandemic in the future and not be afraid of technology.” Participants 4

and 5 both believed that the pandemic allowed educators access to more resources

nationally and, locally to collaborate with others in education about technology and share

strategies with other educators that previously may not have collaborated within an online

forum. Additionally, Participant 5 shared their opinion that, “The pandemic pushed

technology to the forefront of education and that educators need to get on the technology

“wagon” in case we ever must, go back to something like COVID-19 created again.”

Participant 4 however shared a more personal perception expressing, “COVID-19 made

me feel like I do not have a choice. You must do this, you must teach them how to use

technology because you could go virtual, and it was terrifying.” However, Participant 4

and others perceived that being forced to use technology helped them gain skills that they

otherwise would not have been comfortable practicing. “The pandemic has lessened my

fear of using technology with small children. I sought out more resources, and it exposed

me to more opportunities that are available that I can implement.”

During the interviews, several participants shared examples of the virtual tours

that are now available due to the pandemic and believed that they can expand their

students’ world from the classroom many participants explained how many more

resources there are for them now. Most participants also think that the COVID-19

pandemic has increased their willingness to use technology and resulted in an increased

desire for PD in using technology within instruction appropriately. Participants in the

study perceived that people, schools, our children, and the ways in which we connect

with one another have all been impacted because of the pandemic. All participants

expressed unease that the field of education is not the same. Even though many

participants revealed that they still hold out hope that education will get back to normal

they believe that the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that technology is no longer

a luxury but an essential component of the learning process and that teachers need PD to

increase their confidence and ability to consistently integrate technology into their

instruction.

Summary

The problem in this study was that teachers in Grades K-5 at the study site were

not consistently implementing technology within instruction despite having comparable

technology equipment, access to district PD, and similar digital curriculum resources The

purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore the teachers’ perceptions of

integrating technology consistently within classroom instruction in Grades K-5 at the

elementary school under study to understand why technology was not being implemented

within instruction consistently. To study this problem, I developed two RQs to explore

teachers’ perceptions of technology integration and pedagogy in K-5 education. I used a

basic qualitative study that allowed me to understand the perspective of the participants

through their experiences. Mishra and Koehler’s TPACK was influential in framing the

study, and Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy concept was a lens for understanding how

teachers’ beliefs influence how effectively they can carry out technology integration. In

this study, I collected data through semi-structured interviews with 11 elementary

teachers of students in Grades K-5. Each teacher was currently teaching all core subjects,

reading, writing, math, science, and social studies in a general education classroom. The

vast majority of those who agreed to be interviewed were established educators with at

least 10 years of practice. The participants also included at least one teacher from each

grade level from Grades K-5, with many participants teaching in kindergarten through

Grade 3. After interviewing 11 teachers, I reached the point of saturation obtaining no

new information to help answer the RQs.

Every participant discussed the obstacles they each faced while attempting to

implement technology into instruction. However, most participants reported that despite

the difficulties, they would have an open mind and were interested in learning how to

integrate technology appropriately and successfully into their day-to-day instruction.

Every one of the participants expressed a wish to acquire additional training to improve

their ability to integrate technology into their lessons. Through the analysis of the data

collected in my study, nine key themes and two subthemes emerged regarding teachers'

perspectives and experiences with each RQ emerged.

According to the literature, technology is altering how teachers interact,

cooperate, and create in the learning environment. Teachers are being challenged to

design collaborative, learner-centered daily learning experiences (Andersson, et al.,

2016). Understanding how to use technology in the classroom is no longer enough.

Before expecting consistent technology use in classroom instruction, teachers'

pedagogical views must be understood, and teachers must appreciate the use of

technology in instruction (Hur, et al., 2016). The findings of my study are consistent with

the concepts aligned with Mishra and Koehler's (2006) framework on TPACK and Albert

Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy framework, which were used in this study. The use of the

TPACK framework assisted in establishing the significance of technologies to enhance

the relationships and interactions between content, pedagogy, and technology in

instruction. By identifying professional technical knowledge, Mishra and Koehler's

approach promoted the creation of successful teaching and developed a partnership

between CK, PK, and TK to integrate technology into the classroom (Park & Hargis,

2018). As a result, Mishra and Koehler's TPACK framework provided support for this

study. This study was also backed by Bandura's theory of self-efficacy. According to

Bandura, self-efficacy is a set of beliefs that determines how well a person can carry out a

plan of action in a given situation. Individuals' perceptions of their abilities have a

significant impact on their actual abilities. Bandura's self-efficacy framework provided

insight into teachers' current perceptions of their competence or self-efficacy to integrate

technology into classroom instruction on a regular basis.

Many participants in the study perceived that students use of applications or

computer programs was technology integration within the classroom. According to

Zinger et al. (2017), the use of technology in the classroom remains "technocentric,"

implying that technology was used without a clear instructional goal. Students' outcomes

were often poor when technology was used in this manner. According to Park and Hargis

(2018), there is still a need to understand how technology may be effectively integrated

into instruction and what pedagogical practices are required to assist teachers in

effectively implementing technology in the classroom. Park and Hargis also stated that

there is still a need to understand how technology may be properly integrated into

assessment. Technology is increasingly expected to be used in classrooms and teaching

approaches. Based on the findings of Voihofer et al. (2019), educators have developed an

awareness of the extent to which technology can support in student learning. Teachers

with a working knowledge of technology are more aware of the subject-specific

pedagogical material that technology provides for their students' learning and experienced

teachers are not always able to adapt their pedagogical expertise and talents to

technology-mediated instruction. The capacity to teach using technology requires more

than just knowing how to use it and it was observed that the availability of technology,

administrative aid, support personnel, and PD all have a role in boosting teachers' use of

technology in the classroom. Upon further analysis of the data, it was discovered that

many of the participants in this study misinterpreted the relationship between pedagogical

practices and the integration of technology into education. Participants' perceptions were

continually linked to various digital platforms and software programs rather than

pedagogical techniques, and PD was required to support the teachers at the study site.

As noted in Section 2, Bandura (1977) argued that not only may perceived

selfefficacy influence the activities and environments that people choose, but it can also

influence coping efforts that have already begun due to expectations of ultimate success.

Participants in the study reported that when students could properly use technology, they

were more willing to incorporate it into lessons, and teachers evaluated their technology

integration self-efficacy to be connected to students' technological proficiency.

Participants were skeptical that technology could not be integrated into instruction

through pedagogical methods until students were developmentally able to manage

computer hardware and had the physical dexterity to use the computer itself. The

conversations continued to share similarities, and another theme that supported RQ1

revealed that teachers spend more time using traditional instructional strategies for

collaboration than instructional technologies. Every participant acknowledged to using at

least one traditional pedagogical method in their separate classrooms. According to the

research, K-5 teachers considered traditional pedagogical methods of instruction to be

technology integrated into the classroom merely because they used a technology program

or application. In Grades K-5, teachers at the study site consistently used similar

traditional instructional methodologies with vertical alignment. The findings indicate that

teachers in Grades K-5 devote a greater portion of their time to more conventional

teaching strategies than they do using collaborative instructional strategies through the

use of technology. According to the findings of the interviews, each participant brought

up the strategy of using partner activities, such as think-pair-share and table partners.

When discussing the implementation of these tactics, teachers also brought up the usage

of whiteboard routines, gallery walks, and jigsaw routines, all of which are carried out in

the classroom in a conventional manner and do not involve the application of any

technology. All of the teaching strategies shared by participants are useful within the

context of instruction and are required in order to promote engagement; nevertheless,

they do not have a technology component. Only a few of the educators interviewed

acknowledged leveraging collaborative pedagogical approaches by applying technology

such as holding a discussion on a Padlet wall or using a Jamboard to create a digital

gallery walk in a group setting. As described by the literature in Section 2 Andersson et

al. (2016) discovered that technology requires teachers to facilitate collaborative learning

through innovative ways and that 1:1 technology promotes cooperative group work over

cooperative collaboration. When students worked in groups, they typically constructively

divided the work and only communicated face-to-face over their computer lids. The

usage of technology aims to provide students and teachers with a genuine learning

experience while also opening creative and collaborative opportunities

(Kuehl, 2018).

The participants in this study reported that they believed that students need

technology skills to be successful in the 21st-century. Researchers Parrish and Sadera

(2020) reported that students' learning of 21st-century skills through 1:1 technology

integration had a favorable impact on the development of students' subject-specific skill

sets. Learners in today's technology-driven economy require 21st-century skills and

information to be competitive. For students to evolve into productive members of society,

it was critical that their academic experience include 21st-century abilities (Nelson et al.,

2019).

Industrial-era classrooms have begun to be modernized to meet the needs of a

community of learners living in the 21st-century. To achieve this change, teachers'

education and expertise must also progress (Hall et al., 2019). Overall, based on the

responses of participants a new theme developed supporting RQ1, showing that

participants thought students needed to be able to use technology to achieve their future

efforts in the 21st-century. Participants believed that technology knowledge started in the

classroom and that technological ability must be built from the ground up, with difficulty

increasing as students progressed through the grades. Participants also agreed that

technology should be taught in the classroom and used on a regular basis and that

teachers needed technological pedagogical skills to educate students on how to use

technology by incorporating technology into their daily classroom instruction. In order

for teachers to engage in technical pedagogy, it is expected of them that they will use a

variety of technologies and technological instruments. Digital curriculum,

computermediated communication, or collaborative learning digital platforms like

Schoology or programs like Padlet or Jamboard are just a few examples of the kinds of

technology and tools that fall under this category. In the modern world, it is expected of

teachers that they have a high degree of expertise when it comes to using technology in

the classroom. The term "pedagogy" refers to a collection of varied practices, forms,

processes, and procedures that are employed in the process of teaching and learning.

These practices, forms, processes, and methods are referred to together as pedagogical

modalities. The ability of teachers to effectively incorporate the use of technology into

instruction is one definition of the competency known as "techno-pedagogical

competency." Within the realm of techno-pedagogy, there are three distinct

classifications of information that can be found. Content, pedagogy, and technology are

the three categories that fall under this umbrella. The subject matter that is to be covered

has to be instructed, which means that the topic itself has to be taught. The term

"technology" can be used to refer to computers, the internet, and computer-generated

videos, as well as more conventional technologies such as software applications and

digital platforms (Asad et al., 2021).

Participants' responses, on the other hand, resulted in the establishment of another

theme that indicated teachers' perceptions of when they needed to use technology in the

classroom and how they thought they only needed to use it when requested by

administration or for evaluation purposes. Nonetheless, the literature suggests that the use

of technology in the classroom should be a regular expectation for today's teachers, as it

is expected to improve students' academic outcomes. The assumption was made in such

suggestions that if teachers are expected to incorporate technology into their classes, they

will realize the benefit of the technology and incorporate it into their instruction.

Technology in the 21st-century has advanced rapidly, and teachers can now teach outside

of textbooks and engage students all over the world with on-demand materials thanks to

technological advancements (Pierce, 2017). Students can use global information to

augment their classroom study (Geer et al., 2017). Due to the increased accessibility of

critical knowledge and technology, Kuehl (2018) advised teachers that to prepare students

for a largely online world, they must stay current on technological breakthroughs.

Schools must use one-on-one classrooms to prepare children for the 21stcentury and they

must promote PD to promote teaching and teacher training (Parrish & Sadera, 2020).

The state where the research site is located has increasingly instructed teachers to

employ technology in their classroom practices, and an entire section within a teaching

standard on the state teaching rubric was dedicated to grading teachers on both their own

and their students' usage of technology within instruction. Participants said that

technology was often integrated when being assessed by administration or when

mandated at the district or school level, despite knowing that students require constant

use of technology in education to build 21st-century skills. None of the participants

claimed to use technology in the classroom only to improve student achievement; rather,

they claimed to use technology due to state, district, and school mandates.

Teachers must believe they are effective in their use of technology-related

pedagogy to continuously integrate technology into instruction. Teachers require

persistent and comprehensive learning experiences that support not only their ability to

reconceptualize instruction using technology but also their self-efficacy in implementing

such instruction in a meaningful way for students. According to the literature, for teachers

to be successful, they must understand the practices that are required for them to be

successful in properly integrating technology into classroom education on a consistent

basis. This self-efficacy can be increased by actively modeling pedagogical practices with

technology to show teachers how to use technology purposefully and meaningfully within

instruction. The literature reviewed in Section 2 shows that teachers who are confident in

their own abilities are more passionate about using technology in the classroom (Hur et

al., 2016).

In today's educational system, the diverse age range of teachers results in classes

with a wide range of technical skills. Because of this skill gap, the success of bringing

technology into the classroom is dependent on how effective teachers believe they are.

Teachers must consider how their usage of technology is regarded. They may believe that

their use of technology is innovative, but students may not believe that using technology

such as slides, or computer applications is innovative (Hoffman & Ramirez, 2018).

Although teachers value integrating technology into the classroom, it is still sporadic if

not done on a regular basis, according to the report. There is, however, a disconnect

between teachers' pedagogical attitudes on technology integration and their apparent

selfefficacy to use technology in a pedagogical rather than task-oriented manner (Hall and

Trespalacios, 2019). As noted in the Section 2 literature review, emerging research

suggested that teachers routinely participated in informal learning activities that were not

explicitly organized or sponsored by their schools or districts. Teachers' education was

primarily informal, taking place outside of contractual hours before and after school, and

on occasion during specified planning times (Jones & Dexter, 2018). The participants’

responses in this study revealed that they perceived themselves to be successful when

they saw technology integrated into classroom instruction from other teachers, but also

when they saw themselves model classroom practices with their students. The interviews

revealed that participants believe more assistance is required in both seeing and then

implementing pedagogical strategies that incorporate technology into instruction.

The need for collaboration was a concern expressed by participants. Teachers who

collaborate in learning communities are a valuable resource for both planning and

execution. A theme emerged from the data connecting to RQ2 that revealed that

participants in the study perceive that planning for technology occurs on an individual

level, but not consistently as a team. When teachers work together, they may address one

another's knowledge gaps in technology, pedagogy, and material, allowing them to create

dynamic, technology-integrated curriculum (Shinas & Steckel, 2017). Participants in the

study reported that they design lessons as grade-level teams with instructional goals in

mind and consistent incorporation of state standards. However, when asked how

participants plan for technology integration as a team, the majority’s response was that

technology planning was an individual undertaking.

Teachers in the current educational system are required to integrate technological

resources into their classes in such a way that students would make meaningful progress

toward pedagogical goals (Guggemos & Seufert, 2021). Although participants at the

study location recognized the necessity of incorporating technology into classroom

instruction and believed they were confident in their capacity to plan, the consensus was

that technology planning did not occur within PLCs as a school. As a result, participants

and teachers at the study site had mixed emotions regarding the efficacy of incorporating

technology into classroom instruction, and teachers were unsure of their capacity to plan

for technology without the help of their grade-level team. Knowing how to use

technology differed from knowing how to integrate technology into instruction. This was

backed further by Mills et al. (2019) research, which sought to investigate the factors that

influence pedagogical decision-making when teachers integrate technology into

classroom teaching and learning. They found that educators must improve their

awareness of learning opportunities to better integrate technology into their pedagogical

practices as discussed in Section 2.

Teachers, who incorporate technology into daily teaching and learning, play a

critical role in influencing how students interact with technology in the classroom. The

study's findings suggested that PD should include opportunities for teachers to reflect on

their own practice with technology integration and analyze external aspects that

contribute to pedagogical change. To effectively integrate technology into classroom

teaching and learning, teachers' knowledge and beliefs must be developed to support the

creation of inquiry-based experiences that complement those found in the digital sphere.

Participants in the study believed that their school district provided adequate PD

on how to use digital platforms mandated by the school district, but they were concerned

that the school district had not provided PD relevant to integrating technology or

technological platforms into education. According to the conclusions of Guggemos and

Seufert's (2020) research, a teacher who has a stronger knowledge of instructing using

technology across several topic areas may also have a greater knowledge of teaching a

specific subject. However, study participants stated that they are confused about how to

include technological components in classroom instruction. Technology-integrated PD

for teachers has traditionally been focused on a specific digital tool or platform rather

than how to use the technology to achieve educational goals. These PDs did not address

the challenges that teachers may have encountered while incorporating technology into

their lesson preparations. There has been an upsurge in research on this problem as a

result of teachers' lack of formalized PD in incorporating technology into the classroom.

Section 2's literature found that, while technology was widely employed in classrooms

today, there was a mismatch between teachers' active participation and school support

(Jones & Dexter, 2018). The study concentrated on PD opportunities provided by districts

or schools. Recent studies, however, have revealed that educators often engage in

unofficial learning activities that are not formally organized or supported by their schools

or districts. The majority of teachers' PD came via informal, self-directed interactions

with technology. The literature supported that it was challenging to encourage the use of

technology in K–5 classrooms due to teachers' limited expertise and self-efficacy (Mouza

et al., 2017).

Upon further analysis of the data, another theme connected to RQ2 emerged with

participants citing a lack of time as the most significant barrier in their way when it came

to integrating technology into classroom instruction. Although there are numerous

barriers to integrating technology within instruction as discussed in Section 2 the overall

sentiment based on the interviews conducted was that time was the biggest barrier in not

only teaching with technology, but planning for instruction with technology, finding

appropriate resources with technology, and learning how to use the technology with a

high level of self-efficacy prior to integration within the classroom. This assertion was

supported by the findings of a study discussed in Section 2 using a mixed methodology

that was conducted by Hall et al. (2019). The researchers found that career learning that

focused on increasing teachers' self-efficacy in technology integration had a strong

positive relationship with technology integration. According to the findings of the

research, teachers' perceptions of their own competency to apply technological tools and

levels of self-efficacy regarding implementing technology in the classroom grew

significantly after receiving training. Regardless of where they started in terms of

teaching, academic, or technical self-efficacy, teachers were able to make progress

toward their PD goals.

The participants in this study voiced concern that they believe they do not have

the necessary skills and knowledge needed to appropriately integrate technology within

instruction, despite believing that technology is a necessity within classroom instruction

due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, according to Hur et al. (2019) successful

PD that was personalized to the specific requirements of individual teachers led to a rise

in teachers' interest or self-efficacy in the use of technology in the classroom. Although

there was no statistical correlation between the guidance provided by school leaders and

an increase in the use of technology in the classroom, the guidance did have a direct

effect on the teachers' observed self-efficacy. As a result, teachers developed increased

confidence in their ability to assess students' technological skills and deliver instructional

materials to students using technology in the classroom. Finally, an increasing concern

noted among all study participants was that the COVID-19 pandemic had numerous

repercussions for the school system over the last 3 years, which led to the development of

a subtheme connected to RQ2 where participants believed there is a need for technology

in classroom instruction as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Recent research

discussed in Section 2 has exposed that teachers' previous perceptions of pedagogical

practices necessary for technology integration within a classroom have been altered as a

result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the sudden changes that have been required

involving technology in day-to-day instruction, which has directly contributed to the

knowledge required to answer the RQs. Teachers from kindergarten to fifth grade have

exhibited resilience and adaptability in the face of abrupt changes that have challenged

their preconceived conceptions of what a classroom should look like and how children

should learn (Webb et al., 2021).

In summary, the themes that were generated to provide support for RQ1 and RQ2

helped in better comprehending the perceptions of teachers in connection to the obstacles

that are involved with continuously incorporating technology into instruction. In addition

to providing invaluable insights regarding PD opportunities and what areas of opportunity

there are to build teacher capacity and stakeholder knowledge, the responses of the

participants provided the information necessary to develop intentional PD at the study

site. This allowed for an in-depth understanding of the challenges that the participants

perceive. According to the findings, PD ought to include introductory, intermediate, and

advanced levels of training, all of which should be completed through ongoing training

that is embedded within the PLC structure. In addition, there should be a deliberate

follow-up to assist in the integration of technology into the instructional process.

It is imperative that educators receive PD that is tailored to their unique sets of

competencies. In order to differentiate between different levels of PD for teachers, the

various abilities that teachers possess need to be broken down into three categories: basic,

intermediate, and advanced. In both their personal and professional lives, teachers who

have initial skillsets, use technology at a fundamental level. They may be limited to

critical duties such as the usage of email, the processing of word documents, and modest

application use when it is required. An intermediate user is someone who has the basic

skillsets necessary to use technology such as email and word processing, uses technology

hardware such as Smartboards and desktop or laptop computers both personally and

professionally, and has the ability to learn to use new technology with less basic skillsets

needing to be reviewed. An advanced user is someone who is able to learn to use new

technology with no basic skillsets needing to be reviewed. An advanced user of

technology, on the other hand, integrates their use of technology into both their personal

and professional lives as an integral part of both. The advanced user is often one of the

first people to use newly developed technologies and is not afraid to experiment with

different kinds of technology.

Limitations of the Study

When I was conducting the analysis of the data of this qualitative research study, I

took into consideration three limitations. The sample size, the self-selection of

participants, and my bias were all factors that were taken into consideration as limitations

for this study. I employed a modest sample size, which consisted of 11 general education

teachers who taught classes ranging from kindergarten to fifth grade. The size of the

sample could prevent the findings from being generalized. All the individuals were

willing participants who had chosen to take part in the study on their own. The

administration of the study during the COVID-19 pandemic was an additional limitation

of this study due to the restrictions and the social distancing that were involved. The last

limitation of this study was the possibility of my biases. My professional and individual

experiences with the integration of technology into classroom learning were considered

when conducting the interviews. I was able to minimize any negative effects of researcher

bias by using reflective journaling to separate my thoughts and impressions from how I

interpreted the participants' responses.

Recommendations

Access to PD opportunities of a high quality is essential for the on-going growth

and development of teachers at the study site in Grades K-5. The integration of

educational technology into classrooms enables both students and instructors to gain

access to a variety of learning tools that help students get ready for the 21st-century. It is

important for educators to be active members of professional communities that encourage

the growth of leadership skills and give them the ability to affect change using 1:1

technology. One-to-one educators needed to practice and improve their technical skills to

engage in discussions about 1:1 technology in their schools, according to Parrish and

Sadera (2020). Teachers' PD should include opportunities for them to focus on their

pedagogical practices when integrating technology.

The results of this study indicated that the study site occasionally offers

technology-based PD opportunities. Despite this, there was a gap in the present PD

programs, and there are chances to fulfill the learning needs of teachers regarding

instructional technologies and ongoing job-integrated assistance. The findings of this

study also underlined the necessity to implement differentiated learning in PD offered to

teachers in accordance with the specific needs and level of technology understanding of

teachers. The findings made it evident that future research should concentrate on

instructional technology and the essential PD preparations for trainings to enhance

teacher capacity, as well as the differentiation of PD for the various learning levels of K–

5 teachers at the study site.

Section 3: The Project

The goal of this basic qualitative research was to examine teachers' perceptions of

integrating technology consistently within classroom instruction in Grades K-5 at the

elementary school under study. The study's findings indicated that teachers required

additional PD and assistance in recognizing and implementing technology-based

instructional practices. Furthermore, the data revealed a need for collaboration, planning,

and support time.

I created the project in response to the findings identified in Section 2 and as a

solution to the research problem. The project addresses both the pedagogical skills that

teachers require for integrating technology into instruction and the planning and

collaboration structures that they need to effectively plan for integrating technology into

the instruction. Learning would be differentiated based on teachers' self-identified

selfefficacy and current TPACK. The intended PD's goal is to provide comprehensive

training that includes pedagogical practices that facilitate consistent technology

integration in K-5 classrooms. Teachers can engage in learning activities throughout the

training, and the training includes the provision of a support framework that continues

even after the PD sessions are concluded in order to promote additional assistance and

learning for teachers at the study site.

I discuss the project, which can be found in Appendix A, in this section. This

section includes a description, objectives, and rationale for the project. A literature review

that incorporates the conceptual framework and supporting research for the project

deliverable is also provided. The PD execution is detailed, including the tools and

supports, potential obstacles, suggested timeline, and instructional leaders'

responsibilities. Section 3 also includes a project evaluation and a discussion of the

implications of social change at the study site.

Description and Goals

I designed this PD, titled Implementing Technology into Instruction in Grades K5,

to provide teachers at the study site with strategies and techniques to help them develop

their self-efficacy in integrating technology into their pedagogical practices. In designing

the project, I also wanted to allow time for peer collaboration and an opportunity for

educators to share their specific expertise in technological areas with the entire group.

The goal of this basic qualitative study was to investigate teachers' perceptions of

integrating technology consistently within classroom instruction in Grades K-5 at the

elementary school under study. Findings indicated that participants were unsure how to

integrate technological components into classroom instruction, citing a lack of time to

collaborate and plan successful integration of technology within instruction. Participants

also expressed the belief that they could increase their own selfefficacy or ability to

include technology if they could see technology being used in a peer's classroom or had

time to practice technology prior to teaching. The PDPD will be conducted in-person over

the course of 3 days at the location of the study. To ensure consistent, continuous PD that

integrates collaborative structures from a spectrum of new to experienced general

education teachers in Grades K-5, the target audience will consist of all K-5 teachers;

instructional support staff, including instructional coaches; and administrators at the study

site. The intended goal of the PD project and objectives are presented in Figure 4:

Figure 4

Goals and Objectives of the PD Project

Rationale

I presented the study's findings in Section 2. The findings show that teachers at the

study location need both initial training and continuous supports to successfully integrate

technology into their lessons. The key themes and subthemes that emerged from

interviews with 11 elementary school teachers at the study site led me to propose a 3-day

PD program for teachers as a practical means of addressing the challenges involved with

integrating technology into K-5 classrooms on a consistent basis.

The analysis supported that the effective use of technology in instruction is

dependent on efficiently modifying pedagogical practices and overcoming barriers to

integrating technology into existing pedagogical beliefs and practices. Every participant

discussed the challenges they encountered while attempting to integrate technology into

their instruction. Despite the difficulties, most participants stated that they were willing to

keep an open mind and were interested in learning how to integrate technology

appropriately and successfully into their day-to-day instruction. Every participant

expressed a desire to receive additional training to improve their ability to integrate

technology into their lessons. Participation in a thorough PD program may provide the

opportunity for teachers to develop the self-efficacy and skills required to consistently

integrate technology into instruction.

I concluded that PD was the best choice to address the problem of technology not

being consistently used within instruction in Grades K-5 at the study site. This was

determined because PD matched the needs of the teachers in relation to the RQs. I

designed the PD in response to the findings pertaining to the assorted reasons why

teachers do not routinely use technology within their instruction. The PD activities that

teachers, school instructional leaders, and/or school administrators participate in might

improve the individual practice of each participant as well as the collective performance

of the school. This, in turn, may result in increased student learning as well as increased

teacher engagement in planning and collaboration amongst peers regarding technology

use within instruction (see Harper-Hill et al., 2020).

Review of the Literature

The literature review in Section 1 contributed to the formulation of the problem

about the difficulties of integrating technology into K-5 instruction. In this literature

review, I provide examples of effective approaches for incorporating technology into K-5

classroom learning. In addition, I discuss studies that support the effective practices and

techniques for incorporating technology into instruction in Grades K-5.

Literature covered in this section supports the need for effective PD. A PD project

was suitable for addressing the problem in this study since it could contribute to

advancements in K–5 technology integration. The framework that supported this PD

project was the TPACK-Based Approach to Teacher PD. The TPACK model proposes

that for content to be taught effectively with technology, teachers need to have knowledge

of the complex interactions that exist between content, pedagogy, and technology. This

knowledge was initially referred to as TPACK. Because of this paradigm, both educators

of technology and academics in the field of technologyenhanced education have

rethought the process of how one acquires knowledge in this area (Guggemos & Seufert,

2021). SAGE Publications, EBSCO, and ERIC are just a few of the education databases

that are available to users of the Walden University Library. Those databases are where I

found most of the sources that are mentioned in this literature review. PD, professional

development, TPACK, technology integration, PD for technology integration, and the

TPACK model for PD were some of the search phrases that were utilized. After utilizing

these criteria to locate publications, I next restricted the scope of my search to only

include those that had been published during the previous 5 years. To exhaust the

available research and get access to more studies that support the combination of PD and

technology, a total of 25 papers were analyzed in this review.

Approaches to teacher education and professional experience have developed to

meet the problems of the 21st-century, alongside the evolution of learning and teaching to

meet those issues (Curtis et al., 2019). This segment discusses PD within the elementary

school setting, including effective PD, technology and PD, professional communities of

learning, and the effects of peer-coaching and instructional coaching as PD. As the

findings that were presented in Section 2 indicate, there was a need for formal training

along with ongoing support and collaboration in order to ensure consistent integration of

technology within Grades K-5. Participating teachers expressed that if they received

additional training on the integration of technology into instruction, it would improve

their ability to incorporate technology into their lessons. They also believed that training

would give them the opportunity to develop the self-efficacy and skills necessary to

consistently integrate technology into instruction. Webb et al. (2021) used a

nonexperimental design approach to compare and assess data from an anonymous Likert

Scale survey given to seven large school districts to ascertain the significance of

selfefficacy in teachers' CK and skills as well as the crucial role self-efficacy plays in a

teacher. They also looked at whether PD in technology would prepare teachers in grades

K–12 to instruct their students using technology. The information showed that to support

effective teaching, PD must be continuous and ongoing.

Effective PD

Individuals' perceptions of their skills have a significant impact on their abilities.

Performance varies greatly; ability is not a fixed characteristic. Individuals with a keen

sense of self-efficacy recover quickly from failure; they approach situations with an

emphasis on how to control them rather than worrying about what might go wrong.

While attitudes and preparation are regularly discussed as factors influencing teacher

technology acceptance and integration, self-efficacy has been specifically linked to the

highly contextualized nature of implementation. According to Section 2, most study

participants were not comfortable using technology and did not believe they could

successfully incorporate technology into instruction with the skills they already

possessed.

PD targeted at strengthening teacher self-efficacy knowledge, according to Barton

and Dexter (2019), can have a positive impact on teacher attitudes and actions, acting as a

counterbalance when innovation threatens teacher self-efficacy. Teachers have better

access to information about self-efficacy when they participate in formal, informal, and

autonomous PD, and reflection is required for that knowledge to have an impact on

teacher self-efficacy. Indeed, increased teacher self-efficacy may assist teachers in

overcoming external integration issues such as a lack of resources or leadership support.

Addressing sources of teacher self-efficacy is critical for PD. Mishra et al. (2019)

investigated how teachers might be informed about current trends in modern research and

technology, as well as instructed to use similar techniques in their classrooms. The

researchers performed five independent focus group interviews with participants over a 5-

year period. Using design research concepts, the PD model was created and iterated upon.

According to the study, teachers' lack of knowledge regarding efficient technology use

may result in misconceptions and errors when incorporating technology into their

curriculum. In this sense, PD programs that focus on training teachers on how to use

accessible technology in a certain curriculum area are deemed vital. These PDs also give

teachers resources to assist them in implementing technology in the classroom.

Teachers lack knowledge and confidence in adopting recent research that

incorporates technology into their lessons, in addition to a lack of technological

understanding. It has been noticed that educating teachers on the use of modern software

and research tools relevant to their content area can help them introduce research into

their classroom, inform students about current research advancements, and provide them

with an authentic learning experience. Furthermore, teachers must be comfortable

selecting or aiding students in the selection of appropriate technical instruments for data

collection, analysis, and interpretation. Effective teachers, according to Dennis and

Hemmings (2019), must understand both the subject they teach and the pedagogy that

best supports children's learning in that subject. This entails giving teachers opportunities

to participate in PD activities that are relevant to their interests and expressed

requirements. According to Harper-Hill et al. (2020), teachers who have a keen sense of

agency are more willing to enhance their own lives and environments. Teachers with a

higher sense of self-efficacy are more likely to experiment with novel teaching strategies,

which may lead to the successful incorporation of new information into classroom

practice, including the use of technology.

Effective PD offers classroom teachers with targeted learning, allowing them to

filter out distractions and strengthen their practice. Dennis and Hemmings (2019) studied

how job-embedded PD assisted a Year 1 teacher in gaining expertise with guided reading

instruction. Over a 7-month period, the researchers examined the teacher's teaching

progress by evaluating coaching dialogues centered on the teacher's guided reading

practices. According to the findings, the teacher gained more expertise, allowing him to

be more attentive to the students during instruction. It was also established that PD

provided by professionals with experience collaborating with schools, who are familiar

with the challenges teachers face, and who build programs on their own knowledge and

training are more effective than programs that do not take these elements into account.

Furthermore, PD that is interwoven into teachers' daily lives and provides

opportunities for practice, debate, and feedback is more likely to result in transformed

teaching methods. Desimone and Pak (2017) published a paper in response to policy

initiatives encouraging the use of evidence-based teaching approaches. The research

employed cross-sectional studies, longitudinal studies, and literature reviews of

experimental and quasi-experimental investigations. This study adds to the discussion by

noting that there is considerable evidence from their research that for PD to be effective

in improving teacher practice and student learning, at least five characteristics must be

present: Content-focused activities are those that concentrate on subject matter content

and how students learn that content. Active learning: opportunities for teachers to

observe, receive feedback, evaluate student work, or make presentations rather than

passively listening to lectures. Coherence: content, goals, and activities that are

compatible with the school, curriculum and goals, teacher knowledge and beliefs, student

needs, and school, district, and state reforms and policies. Sustained duration: PD

activities that last the entire school year. Collective participation: PD sessions are

attended by groups of teachers from the same grade, subject, or school to form a PLC.

However, Chaipidech et al. (2021) indicate in a study based on andragogy theory

and the TPACK framework that for PD to be effective, it must address the principles and

techniques of adult learning and teacher training, and the focus must shift to a rigorous

process of capacity development for adults, so that the approach to managing their

educational needs is viewed differently than that of children. The practice of supporting

adults in learning is referred to as andragogy, whereas the approach employed by teachers

to instruct students is referred to as pedagogy. Andragogy includes learning as a product,

natural growth, and self-involvement, student-centered and learner-evaluation, and a

method for achieving topic mastery. This overlaps with the use of practice and modeling

the transfer of theory into practice for teachers, as well as using teachers' existing

experience. Hands-on learning is emphasized in this method, and the learner determines

needs, goals, assistive resources, and strategies before evaluating learning outcomes. Peer

groups can help with the process. A peer group is an important motivation for selfdirected

learning, and shared professional experiences assist learners in evaluating their learning

outcomes and reviewing their needs. A PLC fosters collaboration among peers, teachers,

mentors, and supervisors. Relationships are formed by PLCs and the PLC structure

allows learners to build trust, collaborate, and provide a supportive learning environment

(Anderson & Boutelier, 2021). A pre-post intervention design method was employed in

the study and reported on an ongoing longitudinal assessment of the impact of a teacher

PD program on 153 in-service teachers. TPACK was employed in the study to assess

participants' cognitive outcomes regarding how to teach topics using digital technology.

According to research on teacher PD, the process is most effective when it is active,

aligned with intrinsic motivation, focused on individual performance, and reflected on

actual progress.

When PD is combined with vital aspects such as topic standards, curriculum, and

daily courses, it is more likely to be well-implemented. Rather than leaving it up to the

teacher to embrace current ideas and approaches, such alignment gives explicit

recommendations. PD congruence with the curriculum utilized by teachers, as well as the

standards and content taught by instructors, has been linked to the effectiveness of

various PD projects. PD is more likely to be effective when it is clearly integrated into

teachers' regular teaching methods. A lack of curricular coherence and pace, on the other

hand, has been identified as a primary reason for the failure of PD programs (Desimone

& Pak, 2017).

A study was conducted on the establishment of competency-based PD. Elliot

(2017) examined how educational institutions could improve PD by including it into

traditional academic programs. The research advocated for a novel application of the

TPACK framework, which is a model of the knowledge required for effective teaching.

Learning activities might be formal or informal, structured, or unstructured, individual or

group, and formal or informal, according to the study. Weinhandl and Lavieza (2018), on

the other hand, suggest that teacher trainers take in mind that participating teachers are

employed and may have family commitments and leisure needs while organizing and

conducting PD sessions. Teachers may get overburdened if the necessity for didactic and

technological PD is now extended to include regulatory developments. This potential

overstrain may have an adverse effect on teachers, instructional coaches, and professional

growth. Dennis and Hemmings (2019) argue for opportunities for teachers to participate

in PD activities that are relevant to their interests and expressed needs to avoid this

potential hindrance to effective PD.

Teachers must engage in learning activities that are authentic, active, and

collaborative. Active learning opportunities for teachers improve the effectiveness of PD.

In contrast to passive learning, which is typically characterized by listening to a lecture,

active learning can take several forms, including observing expert teachers or being

observed, followed by interactive feedback and discussion; reviewing student work in the

topic areas being covered; and leading discussions (Desimone & Pak, 2017). George and

Sanders (2017) directed a quantitative study that used 33 teacher-designed

technologybased tasks from eight subject areas. Explanations were captured during

interviews with teachers or from field notes taken during observations, and the 33 tasks

were plotted using two intersecting continua, represented by solid lines, to gauge the

benefit. The study discovered that needs-based PD is more likely to succeed, especially if

teachers identify needs themselves, and that good PD programs include opportunities for

feedback. Keeping with the theme of effective PD, Desimone and Pak (2017) suggested

that PD is more effective when teachers have more opportunity to practice what they have

learned and receive feedback on it. This feedback is most helpful when it is explicit and

draws on data sources. Adult learners get invested in learning when they understand why

they are learning and actively direct the challenges they are attempting to solve. Their

schooling is informed by prior knowledge and experience, and they seek influence over

their tasks. To put it another way, they want to be acknowledged as capable adults with

something to offer (Hanewicz et al., 2017).

Even though studies have proven that employing technology in the classroom can

improve students' academic performance, there are still obstacles that impede teachers

from implementing digital technology into their lessons. Personal views are impacted, but

so are the contexts in which people find themselves socially and culturally, as well as the

educational practices that children are exposed to (Durff & Carter, 2019). To get through

this obstacle, Elliot (2017) suggests modeling and connecting PD programs with

pedagogy to achieve the goal of practicing what and how instructors teach. This will

allow teachers to get better at their jobs. Increasing teachers' knowledge and application

of their skills is the primary objective of practice-based PD techniques. Teachers are

provided with "professional learning assignments" when they participate in practicebased

PD. The assignments are designed to address specific challenges that teachers have in the

classroom. A practice-based approach allows educators to enhance students' capabilities

by bridging the gap between theory and application. As they put their newly acquired

skills to use in the classroom, teachers also receive feedback on their performance (Hirsch

et al., 2019). However, Chaipidech et al. (2021) emphasize that to prevent a failure in

school improvement, teachers should be active participants in PD rather than passive

receivers of new information.

Teacher collaboration in PD creates a constructive learning environment.

Interactive forums assist teachers to build a shared vision, expectations, commitment,

student learning accountability, and trust (Desimone & Pak, 2017). It is vital to develop a

PD strategy that results in improvement in teaching practice and understanding, as well as

improved student engagement. Teachers require extensive learning experiences that

improve not only their ability to rethink teaching with the help of technology, but also

their self-efficacy in providing instruction (Barton & Dexter, 2019). Krauskopf et al.

(2018) claim that to self-regulate one's learning, it is necessary to become self-aware of

one's prior knowledge as well as the task at hand and the context of its performance.

Selfassessment tools frequently measure self-efficacy, which has the potential to be a

reliable indicator of teachers' use of technology. Additionally, self-assessment tools are

widely used in studies on technological acceptance (Guggemos & Seufert, 2021). To

modify teachers' practices, Harper-Hill et al. (2020) found that participation in formal and

informal learning events is both necessary and effective. To change their practices,

teachers interact with new professional knowledge in a gradual, active, and dynamic

process known as teacher professional learning. If PD is to be successful, teachers must

be placed in a position to better comprehend and integrate new methods into their

teaching repertoire to improve student results (Webb et al., 2021). Teachers must enter

the experience with an open mind, a want to learn, a willingness to be observed, and a

drive to enhance their own teaching if they want effective PD to take place (Ralston et al.,

2019). Teachers can advance in their careers by taking advantage of development

opportunities, which help them step beyond of their comfort zones. However, Desimone

and Pak (2017) found that impacts are unlikely to occur until teachers attend a specific

number of PD hours or sessions.

Researchers have discovered features that lead to effective PD throughout the last

decade. Simply practicing or teaching material knowledge, for example, is insufficient:

teachers must also acquire relevant pedagogies to enhance student learning. For effective

PD to occur, frequent and appropriate PD opportunities must be available. Motto (2021)

understands that offering targeted PD is difficult due to teachers' varying degrees of

knowledge and the need for diverse practice skills through collaboration. Furthermore,

incorporating pedagogical subject learning while also incorporating appropriate

technology integration to improve education may be problematic. Despite the challenges,

effective teacher PD is feasible. It should be noted that effective PD is rigorous, ongoing,

and practice-based, and Pearce et al. (2017) suggest that school-based assistance is

critical for improving teacher practice. Active collaboration and hands-on activities are

crucial in increasing teachers' TPACK, and school-based coaching, such as subject

specialists or coaches, have been utilized to support teachers in building CK and

pedagogical approaches within the context of their own classroom (Njiku et al., 2021).

Technology and PD

The National Technology Plan for the United States also proposes incorporating

technology into the educational system to improve student learning. Teachers may assist

students in learning and influence their futures by incorporating technology into their

classrooms. As a result, teachers must have a good understanding of technology and how

to implement it. Mishra et al. (2019) contends that, while modern teacher education

students are often referred to be digital natives and are aware of technology, they are

frequently inadequate at implementing technology into their curriculum. Furthermore,

while some veteran teachers are already using technology, it is used for simple tasks such

as internet browsing and word processing. It was discovered in Section 2 that participants

in this study used comparable technologies. Participants acknowledged using technology;

however, they were using technology applications or software rather than incorporating

technology into their pedagogical practices.

In a study analyzing teacher concerns about technology-based learning and

instruction, Espinoza and Neal (2018) developed TPACK-ConK, a new model based on

TPACK that adds an additional layer of information, context knowledge, to satisfy

teachers' particular PD needs. According to the findings, educators frequently struggle to

integrate technology into their teaching practices, and there is a lack of deeper-level

learning and transformation that occurs when technology is strategically integrated from a

pedagogical standpoint, even though digital technologies have the potential to promote

deep learning when used purposefully and appropriately. According to Motto (2021), the

TPACK framework fosters a balance of technology, pedagogy, and subject knowledge.

This balance was crucial for effective education, and each area had a unique role that

complemented the roles of the other areas. Through proper use of the TPACK model,

educators have the potential to improve lesson delivery and accelerate the learning of

their students. In addition to this, according to Elliot (2017), at its core, TPACK is a

teacher knowledge framework that directed professional growth. The knowledge areas

technical (T), pedagogical (P), and content (C), as well as the overlap between them

(PCK, TPK, TCK, and TPACK), built a relational map of which knowledge, skills, and

capabilities are necessary for teachers. Research on how to create PD programs for

teachers was the impetus for the development of the TPACK framework.

The use of digital devices and connectivity to the internet is becoming

increasingly widespread in academic settings. However, teachers do not provide their

students with the opportunity to make meaningful use of technology in their educational

experiences. Instead, teachers are turning to technology as a tool for enhancing the

effectiveness of teacher-centered instruction. This occurs at the expense of an education

that is more progressive and focused on the student. It is not always the case that teachers

make the most of the educational opportunities presented by technology in the classroom.

Because a teacher's sense of self-efficacy has a positive correlation with the quality of

technology integration, raising teachers' senses of self-efficacy could help encourage

better integration (Barton & Dexter, 2019). On the other hand, George and Sanders

(2017) believe that the value of technology in education is not just determined by whether

teachers have access to it, but by how teachers use it. Students need access to technology

that can assist them in comprehending the material and developing higher-order cognitive

skills. Initiatives to integrate technology into educational settings have gained momentum

in recent years because of developments in information and communication technologies,

with the goal of radically improving educational practices and student outcomes. This

involves making teaching more efficient and effective, but it has also been found that

whether teachers are required to use technology in the classroom is a critical factor in

determining how effectively they implement educational technology. In addition, Njiku et

al. (2021) state that developing teachers' competencies in technology integration has been

a recent focus of teacher PD, and that PD should be authentic and should optimize the use

of peer teams to support each other in real school contexts. In addition, one of the recent

focuses of teacher PD has been on the development of teachers' technology integration

competencies. Furthermore, developing teachers' competencies in technology integration

has recently been one of the areas of attention in teacher PD. The ability of teachers to

foster learning with technology has been the focus of a great deal of PD for teachers;

however, as is the case with all aspects of teacher knowledge, continuing PD assists

teachers in keeping their knowledge and skills current as well as acquiring new

information and abilities to meet the demands of modern education. Even while access to

technology has risen, simply accessing, and using technology is not enough to produce

effective technology integration in educational settings. The development of technology

is characterized by rapid growth and changes, which presents difficulties for educators

who are tasked with keeping up with such rapid developments.

Motto (2021) observed six instructors who participated in instructional coaching

cycles to improve their TPACK in the classroom. A Likert scale survey was used in this

quantitative study, and a paired sample t-test was used to compare pre- and post-survey

assessments. The study's findings indicated that teachers have various requirements for

incorporating and integrating technical, pedagogical, and topic knowledge into their

classroom. To develop strong TPACK, teachers must also demonstrate an understanding

of how technology may be used to make learning accessible to all students (Shinas &

Steckel, 2017).

A teacher’s perception of their abilities or self-efficacy has been explicitly linked

to the highly contextualized nature of implementation and is a component of the

conceptual framework of this study. Not only do teachers' self-efficacy levels vary, but

their efficacy also varies depending on the technology in question (Barton & Dexter,

2019). Furthermore, the TPACK model, the fundamental conceptual framework in this

study, argues that the most effective learning environments are those that permit students

and teachers to investigate technologies in relation to the subject matter in authentic

situations. Intelligent technological pedagogical applications necessitate the production of

a complex contextual form of knowledge, which is the consequence of a dynamic

interplay between content, pedagogy, and technology. In every class they teach, educators

with this degree of experience manage the unique spaces created by pedagogy, topic, and

technology (Espinoza & Neal, 2018). According to George and Sanders (2017), TPACK

is the transactional and dynamic interplay of content, pedagogy, and technology. For the

development of context-specific procedures and representations, it is essential to

comprehend the mutually reinforcing relationships between all three components. To

produce technology-based assignments that are acceptable, teachers

must have skills beyond TPACK. Teachers must justify their pedagogical decisions and

behaviors using their knowledge base.

To build effective PD models that can help teachers integrate technology into their

own classrooms, we must first understand how teachers think about technology in

connection to actual practice. PCK refers to a teacher's understanding of instructional

processes as well as topic knowledge. The level and quality of PCK provided by a teacher

can influence what and how their students learn (Mishra et al., 2019). However, while

appropriate technology can enhance students' experiences and help them learn more about

their subject matter, Motto (2021) warns that teacher limits may exist, thereby affecting

lesson delivery. Furthermore, curricular considerations may limit the types of technology

available. To go beyond simply using technology to augment instruction, teachers must

understand how the technology chosen can alter the learning task. TPK encourages

teachers to think beyond the technology's initial design and adapt it to increase student

learning. Using TPACK for PD requires only a shift of context. A single teacher is not the

same as a PD program. While the TPACK model focuses on teachers, the framework may

be adapted to any PD program. Chaipidech et al. (2021) investigated andragogy theory

and the TPACK framework. The study used a pre-post intervention design method to

investigate the influence of a teacher PD program on 153 in-service teachers over an

extended period of time. In the study, TPACK was used to measure participants'

cognitive outcomes regarding how to teach topics using digital technology. The

researchers discovered that educating teachers how to properly use technology is a

complex process that necessitates the use of numerous forms of teaching expertise.

Personalized learning systems that consider individual characteristics and adapt unique

learning paths and experiences to current events and learning demands are critical for

effective teacher PD. Overall, this andragogical intervention program of TPACK was

largely successful in increasing the technological integration comprehension of digital

technologies in teachers' instruction.

To effectively teach with technology, establishing TPACK in teachers entails

comprehending both what one already knows and what one needs to know. Teachers need

to grasp a wide range of subjects, as well as reflect on their expertise to grow

professionally. TPACK is a professional knowledge structure, consequently, neither the

PD path to TPACK is fully developed nor is it entirely centered on activities like

"training." Instead, it is the outcome of a complex interaction between training and

teaching experience, necessitating support for guided self-reflection for teachers'

selfregulated growth (Krauskopf et al., 2018). According to Guggemos and Seufert

(2021), teachers' competence and cooperation are required for professional advancement

in the context of digital transformation. This demonstrates the need of effective learning

experiences for teachers in order to improve their ability to reconceptualize instruction

with technology and their self-efficacy in carrying out such instruction. However,

scalability and sustainability concerns hinder PD initiatives that meet high-quality design

criteria. Infrastructure, such as device availability, leadership, such as encouraging

specific pedagogical strategies, cognitive characteristics, such as technical ability, and

affective attributes, such as technology beliefs, all have an impact on teachers' technology

integration at the teacher and school levels (Barton & Dexter, 2019). On the other hand, it

may be argued that the lack of instruction on how to use technology creates a pedagogical

barrier for both newly hired teachers and veteran teachers whom themselves have limited

experience with technology (Durff & Carter, 2019). It is crucial to familiarize teachers

with current technology and keep them informed about technological improvements as a

result. Teachers are able to learn about the various ways in which technology can be

integrated into their respective subject areas thanks to PD, which also equips teachers

with the knowledge, abilities, and resources they need to feel comfortable integrating

technology into their classrooms (Mishra et al., 2019). Asad et al. (2021) asserts that

teachers in the classroom who have technical teaching abilities, also known as

technopedagogy, are able to teach subjects more successfully by focusing on the

requirements of individual students. Because of this, the learner is better able to retain the

information that they have been taught because they are able to fully comprehend the

concepts. because it eases the burden on the teachers and gives the students the

opportunity to recollect more information.

Professional Communities of Learning

PLCs, or professional learning communities, are groups of educators that usually

work in grade-level teams and collaborate to develop curriculum, evaluate data, and

advance their professional knowledge. Weinhall and Lavieza (2018) used semi-structured

expert interviews to gather their data, and they created an interview guide that

concentrated on the needs and preferences of teachers for in-service PD, as well as its

methods, structure, and unique features when contemporary technologies are at the

forefront. According to the study, teachers who take part in PD also desire to belong to a

community of experts or learners. In addition to exchanging knowledge, it may be

beneficial for the participating teachers to exchange experiences in these groups to better

their abilities and knowledge. However, it should be noted that additional team-building

exercises are required so that teachers can create groups of learners prior to the start of

the course. Both team-building exercises and rigorous tasks could be used for this goal, it

was concluded from the interview data acquired for the study.

Teachers should work together to address these tasks or challenges since they are

unable to do so alone. In addition, social factors affect PD. Students may be able to learn

more quickly if better teachers are integrated into a community of learners. This is true of

education gained from PD courses. Group-building exercises should be conducted for

these communities to develop. Additionally, it was emphasized how crucial it is for

groups to form throughout training so that teachers can continue to share ideas with other

participants following PD. The PD that teachers have received will not be applied

sustainably in their teaching if such communities of learners are not developed.

Professional learning groups are crucial to teachers' PD, according to Guggemos

and Seufert (2021). The researchers used structural equation modeling, mediation and

multigroup analyses, a finite-mixture segmentation, comparisons of competing models,

and factor score regression in their quantitative study, which included 212 in-service

teachers as a sample, to demonstrate that the activities of teacher communities may

include the creation of school curricula or knowledge exchange that gathers such

activities as teacher collaboration, integration, and communication. The study discovered

that PLCs were beneficial to the collaboration in the creation of TPACK framework

components.

Participants in this study expressed a desire for time to interact and prepare with

peers in Section 2. They also discussed the necessity for time to practice different

technologies and the desire to observe other peers teaching with technology to learn how

to integrate it into their own classes. In a study conducted by Ralston et al. (2019), team

cohesiveness appeared to be a crucial factor affecting the improvements gained by

participants. The researchers studied the effects of introducing a new model of

supplemental PD for teachers. This was a two-part qualitative research project that

included observations and interviews. In this study, however, some individuals were

paired with teachers with whom they had no prior relationship. This unfamiliarity aided

and hindered trust, causing people to report feeling uneasy when being monitored or

evaluated.

However, various criteria, according to Weinhall and Lavieza (2018), should be

investigated to increase the possibility that PD will have an influence on a group.

Participants in PD in schools are typically a varied group. Teachers' knowledge, skills,

and attitudes regarding the subject, technologies, or the learning process may vary. In a

perfect environment, this diversity could be used to benefit PD. This implies you would

be learning not only from the instructor but also from a coworker. Another advantage of

diversity is that it provides different viewpoints on the same subject, extending the

horizons of the participants. Njiku et al. (2021) stress the necessity of working in groups

as peers and recommend that technology integration be approached contextually. They

conducted a study in which they used a quasi-experiment with three groups and a pre and

post-test for groups that were not equal. The study was comprised of teachers who

completed a TPACK questionnaire before and after the intervention. According to the

findings of this quantitative study that used a paired sample t-test, working in groups as

peers to construct classes may complement each other's strengths and aid in overcoming

issues inherent in teachers' own professional abilities.

Teachers are expected to use technology in their instruction in a way that

promotes the achievement of relevant pedagogical goals; on the other hand, teachers may

be expected to integrate new content into their instruction or change instructional

variables because of digital transformation. Literacy in information and communication

technologies, for example, may become increasingly vital for societal participation and

workplace success (Guggemos & Seufert, 2021). Participants in Section 2 expressed

concern that students in their classrooms must be prepared to live and work in the

21stcentury, and they believe that begins with preparing them in the classroom with the

technological skills needed to succeed. However, they were unsure of how to plan and

embed technology within their content areas and found some content areas easier to

embed technology in than others.

Shinas and Steckel (2017) established a framework of thoughts and questions to

help teachers plan for technology-integrated instruction in a study framed by the

conceptual model TPACK and a case study of a classroom instructor. They discovered

that while planning for technology-integrated instruction, it is critical to start with

instructional goals. Content-specific content should drive every course across disciplines.

The next step in preparing for technology-integrated education is to think about the

pedagogical techniques that will best complement your material and students. When

effective teachers plan for technology integration, they start as a team with the subject

they want to teach rather than the technology they want to integrate. Effective teachers

begin their instructional team planning with the lesson and instructional unit standards

and learning objectives. They consider the "what" and "how" of the instruction before

selecting the technology.

Teachers develop models that integrate context-relevant aspects such as

themselves, the students in their classroom, tasks, and learning objectives when mapped

into the context of TPACK and explain how these various parts interact throughout

learning settings (Krauskopf et al., 2018). To be successful, these approaches must

integrate formal PD with teacher-led informal learning and individual PD. Barton and

Dexter (2019) examined survey data from teachers in two schools about their PD related

to technology integration in a mixed-methods study and discovered that school leaders

must combine formal PD that is typically led with support for teacher-driven informal

and independent PD that effectively meets teacher needs. They differentiate between

informal and autonomous professional learning as modes of self-directed learning, in

which teachers exercise their autonomy in deciding how and when to obtain professional

knowledge. They characterize independent learning as teachers moving outside of their

school or district to further explore a topic, whereas informal learning is teacher-initiated

contact with coworkers that improves collective knowledge inside the same school or

district.

PD for teachers, according to Weinhall and Lavieza (2018), should include more

hands-on learning rather than only lectures. These practical tasks are designed to help

learners apply the course material in real-world situations. Because of the diverse groups

of students, real-world scenarios, and hands-on activities, teachers should rarely work

alone during PD. Teachers should collaborate to learn new topics and then create

collaborative learning resources. Joining groups during and after a PD session should be

beneficial to participating teachers. Typically, the course group has an impact on the

school group. As a result, teachers must join a group while pursuing PD to benefit later in

their careers.

Participants in the study discussed pieces of technology that they are familiar with

or have used in their own instruction in Section 2, and teachers' professional expertise is a

focus point because it has been proven to be a significant component of instructional

quality (Guggemos & Seufert, 2021). Participants expressed a desire for time to interact

and show one other what technology is being used and how it is being used inside

instruction because they rarely have time to communicate what technological resources

they are using. Hirsch et al. (2019) assert that teacher PLCs engage faculty members with

similar needs and contextualize PD for teachers. In a study that examined the effect of

strategically designed PD workshops on universal classroom management practices with

6 elementary teachers during their first 3 years of teaching and a multiple-baseline design

across groups of teachers, the results indicated that a PD program increased teachers'

practice and decreased reprimands. Changes in teacher knowledge and student

engagement were demonstrated by descriptive data. According to Dennis and Hemmings

(2019), successful PD should provide focused learning for classroom teachers to filter the

noise and develop their skills. Further PD that is incorporated into teachers' work lives

and allows for practice, discussion, and feedback during PLCs is more likely to result in

changed instructional practices.

Peer Coaching and Instructional Coaching

In Section 2, the participants in this study stated a desire for time to communicate

and prepare with peers. Other participants noted that they feel successful when they

observe other teachers utilizing technology in the classroom as models, whether through

social media, learning walks, or peer observations. In addition, they noted the need for

time to experiment with various technologies and the want to observe colleagues teaching

with technology to learn how to implement it in their own classrooms. Teachers possess

an abundance of information and expertise. Teachers learn from one another, reach out to

one another, and mentor one another during their careers. Teachers' learning communities

are effective planning and implementation platforms. When teachers collaborate, their

combined knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content enables them to overcome

knowledge gaps and build technology-integrated curriculum that is effective. To do this,

teachers must function as peer mentors for their colleagues, supporting each other's

efforts to assess, modify, and improve practices that enable technology-integrated

instruction (Shinas & Steckel, 2017).

Additionally, instructional coaches function as a sort of peer coaching. Motto

(2021) states that instructors who collaborate with an instructional coach receive,

individualized PD in technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge to improve their

classroom instruction. Through reflective and collaborative practice, an instructional

coach may give each teacher the customized support they need to achieve the perfect

combination of technical, pedagogical, and content understanding. In addition, Desimone

and Pak's (2017) research correlates instructional coaching with improvements in school

climate, teacher collaboration, and teacher attitudes, as well as skill transfer, perceptions

of efficacy, and increased student achievement. The implementation of technology in the

classroom can be seen as stressful or intimidating. According to Motto (2021), educators

must shift their focus from the technology itself to teaching with technology. Continuous

practice and review with a coaching peer or instructional coach result in more effective

classroom technology utilization. Despite the positive influence of technology integration

on academic achievement, Durff and Carter (2019) concur, based on a study, that teachers

encounter attitudinal, social, and pedagogical challenges. They conducted a qualitative

multiple-case study to investigate how teachers overcame technological integration

obstacles. The findings revealed that technology integration was most effective when

administrators, technology support staff, and teachers collaborated as a team. Successful

tactics included providing adequate PD, fostering collegial support, and promoting

collaboration among teachers, educating teachers to discover relevant technological

resources, and establishing value and support for the use of technology for learning. The

study indicated that the encouragement of peers boosts one's confidence and morale when

using technology. Teachers overcome challenges to technology integration through

training, dialogue with peers, and collaborative creativity. Teachers who exchanged ideas

on technology use, provided advice to one another, and were open to observing within

one another's classrooms were more empowered to overcome obstacles and implement

technology in their classrooms.

Teachers are more inclined to adopt technology in the future if they are given the

opportunity to see the benefits of employing it in each subject area. Firsthand

technological encounters assist them in shifting their ideas and becoming aware of the

significance of technology in education (Mishra et., 2019). Likewise, Pearce et al. (2017)

did a study that analyzed the perspectives of teachers who participated in a 2-year PD

program with a strong peer-coaching component. The value of connections, the

importance of teacher dedication, and the consequent change and growth in educators

were emergent themes based on data collected through focus groups and researcher notes.

Nevertheless, Pearce et al. (2017) discovered that teachers' opinions of peer

coaching play a significant impact on its success as a PD tool. Personal characteristics of

the coach, whether a peer or instructional coach, such as good interpersonal

communication skills and a positive attitude, can contribute to the development of a

positive relationship with teachers. In fact, the relationship that develops between the

teacher and the coach remains one of the most important aspects of the level of coaching

efficacy. Active learning through instructional coaching occurs frequently when teachers

collaborate in learning teams with colleagues in the same subject area or grade level.

Coaches can help to support social learning processes by collaborating with teacher

groups, most typically through grade-level PLCs, in which they discuss progress

monitoring tactics, instructional improvement strategies, student data, and curriculum

changes. When teachers seek expert advice on negotiating the technical obstacles of

introducing new instructional approaches or obtaining a deeper awareness of how to

reconstruct their practice, the coach's involvement in these grade-level PLC meetings is

beneficial (Desimone & Pak, 2017). Yet, Motto (2021) contends that for instructional

coaches to give tailored learning to teachers and achieve long-term pedagogical changes,

job-embedded PD is required. Through collaboration and reflection, the instructional

coach must provide on-demand help through tools such as literacy strategies, technology

integration, and other evidence-based practices. Instructional coaching cycles must also

be available as they are a critical component of PD that fulfills individual teachers'

instructional and technical needs. Coaches must collaborate with teachers to use

technology to support instruction in a variety of subject areas and accomplish learning

objectives. Instructional coaching enables PD outcomes to be realized via practice and

reflection.

Instructional coaching and peer coaching are two methods that can be used to

provide feedback on the specific teaching practices of individual teachers. Coaching,

whether it is from a peer or an instructional coach, can be beneficial to teachers in helping

them put theory into practice. The coaching process may be beneficial in the classroom if

both the coach and the teacher are committed to seeing it through. This is because the

coaching process encourages teachers to engage in more in-depth professional reflection.

On the other hand, the potential benefits of either instructional or peer coaching are

frequently dependent on the quality of the connection between the teacher and the coach

(Pearce et al., 2017). Teachers need to be aware of the benefits that come from engaging

in PD activities and making use of both peer and instructional coaches as a resource to

improve their instructional practice (Weinhandl & Lavieza,

2018).

Summary

Teaching is more than just utilizing a method or a strategy; it is about human

interactions inside a complicated network of connections and relationships. Because of

the complexity of the learning sciences, teachers are always challenged to interpret the

educational field's myriad of recommendations. Enabling teachers' professional learning

is a critical determinant of supporting high-quality teaching. Rather, high-quality teaching

can be judged by evidence-informed teachers who reflect on their actions to develop and

improve the quality of their own teaching methods (Smets, 2017).

PD design is an ongoing, iterative process for improving teacher learning

opportunities as part of ongoing teacher education. Zinger et al. (2017) studied a PD

program meant to educate a cohort of teachers to teach using an online resource. They

investigated how an iterative, design-based approach leveraged teacher feedback to build

learning opportunities in PD. Using the TPACK framework, they discovered that PDs

provided teachers with increasingly individualized and relevant learning opportunities.

The program recruited 37 teachers from 16 schools, and the study's approach was

mostly qualitative; however, quantitative metrics were employed for teacher TPACK

surveys, as well as Likert-like teacher post-survey responses for the overall quality of the

PD. The research revealed that using PD could alter teacher beliefs, knowledge, and

classroom practices, and that it could play a critical role in teacher education in terms of

integrating technology into instruction. Extended PD duration, access to technology,

opportunity for teachers to actively participate in activities in a student role, time to

address individual teachers' contextual circumstances, a clear vision, and time to

collaborate with peers. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), overall

average teacher reported TPACK scores increased from 4.23 to 4.61, almost 1 full

standard deviation.

Teacher PD is a critical component of ongoing teacher education because it

prepares and supports teachers as they introduce and use technological resources in their

classrooms. Incorporating technology in the classroom to increase student learning is a

continuous teaching challenge. Teacher PD is a vital component of teacher education that

can allow teachers use technology and improve their learning. Harper-Hill et al. (2020)

conducted a qualitative study using an inductive approach to construct a framework of

professional learning in action from what teachers told them about their professional

learning experiences which led to changes in their practice. The research revealed that if

teacher professional learning is to result in practice change in the classroom, learning

experiences must be planned with the nature of the subject as well as the key role of

internal teacher traits that mediate teacher agency in professional learning in mind. A

mixed-method study on staff perceptions of professional growth showed that approaches

to teaching and learning have evolved in response to changes in teacher education and PD

to meet the challenges of the 21st-century (Curtis et al.,2019). As a result, PD design is an

ongoing, iterative process for improving teacher learning opportunities as part of ongoing

teacher education. The evaluation, or the systematic collection and use of data to improve

PD, must take place because it provides data to assess whether the program met its

objectives and to help plan future training (Iftikhar et al., 2022).

Project Description

In the PD program (see Appendix A) that I developed; participants will receive 3

days of in-person training on how to regularly integrate technology into K–5 classroom

instruction. The Teacher Leadership Institute (TLI), which is expected to occur in July

2023, will provide PDPD for teachers. Although the sessions would be conducted

inperson, an online session may be created at a later date, and all sessions would be

videotaped for later review or viewing by those who did not attend the live sessions.

Throughout the process of constructing the PD project, it was essential to

remember that the PD is intended for adult learners. According to the andragogy theory

and the TPACK framework, PD (PD) must address the concepts and practices of adult

learning and teacher training in order for it to be effective. This is because andragogy

describes the process of assisting individuals in their own educational pursuits, while

TPACK outlines the components of effective teacher training. Andragogy is an approach

for achieving subject matter mastery that involves learning as a product, natural

development, and self-involvement. In addition, it views learning as a product. This

overlaps with the use of practice, modeling the application of theory to practice for

teachers, and making use of the prior experience of teachers. The learner should first

determine their needs, goals, assistive tools, and strategies before moving on to an

analysis of their learning results. Andragogy places an emphasis on learning through

hands-on experience. In addition, the emphasis must be shifted to a stringent process of

capacity development for adults. This will ensure that the strategy for meeting the

educational requirements of adults is regarded in a manner that is distinct from the

strategy for meeting the educational requirements of children. The PD project is most

likely to be successful when it is active, in line with intrinsic motivation, focused on

individual performance, collaborative, and reflects on actual progress.

Resources and Existing Supports

Personal laptop devices are going to be necessary as a resource to be successful in

completing the PD. Every participant is given the option of using the device that is

supplied by the school district or bringing their own device to use. In addition, the

instructional support staff, including instructional coaches; school administration; and

classroom teachers will all be encouraged to provide suggestions regarding the use of

technology in the instructional process, based on the information and expertise they have

regarding this topic. Participants will be encouraged to collaborate with one another to

make the most of the opportunity to share their views and approaches when technology is

used in classroom instruction. This will help participants make the most of the

opportunity to share their ideas.

Potential Barriers and Solutions

The voluntary nature of participation in the PD initiative presents a possible

obstacle that could impede its successful completion. Because the sessions will take place

outside of the normal workday for participants and will be held during the Summer (TLI)

Teacher Leader Institute that is offered every summer, teachers have the option to opt out

of participating. Participation in the summer TLI is not required and is not a part of the

teachers' school year contract. In addition, the participants in the study will not receive

any payment from the school system for the time that they have contributed. Free

materials that could support teachers in the process of integrating technology within their

classroom instruction or free subscriptions to newly released technology applications are

two potential solutions to this problem. Offering these options to educators could be one

way to address this issue.

There is a possibility that the location of the PD (PD), which will only be provided

in-person at the school that is serving as the study site and on days when instructors do

not have contractual obligations, could be a barrier to the project's success. This PD is

intended to be in-person education over the course of 3 days; however, it is possible that

it may be recorded for participants who are unable to attend the live session, or that a

Zoom video training session could be made available at a later time. The Zoom platform

provides options for collaboration using breakout rooms and has the potential to offer an

alternative meeting style. If the

Project Purpose and Goals

The purpose and primary goal of this PD was to provide the teachers at the study

site with the knowledge and skills required to consistently integrate technology into their

K-5 lessons. The PD was designed as a result of the collected data, which identified the

pedagogical practices that teachers perceived as necessary for consistently integrating

technology into classroom instruction and how teachers perceived their ability to

consistently integrate technology into classroom instruction. Teachers believed they

lacked the training, support, collaboration, team based planning, and sufficient time to

implement technology effectively and frequently. Teachers at the site of the study

believed that professional training was needed. As a result, this PD was developed.

Important stakeholders in this PD at the study site are teachers, instructional

support staff, and administrators. During the sessions, teachers, instructional support

staff, and administrators will work together on collaborative activities and practice with

new technology tools and strategies within cooperative learning teams. In order to

improve the effectiveness of subsequent PD, every learner will be required to complete a

summative evaluation and reflect on their experience at the conclusion of each session. A

summary of the survey results will be distributed to both the administrative staff and the

instructional support staff. When the leadership of the study site is provided with the

results of the assessment survey, they will be responsible to use the overall information

about the effectiveness of the entire PD, to assist them in making decisions regarding the

ongoing support that will be provided throughout the year. The PD project's intended

outcomes are as follows:

•Teachers will be able to explore, identify, and integrate technology enhanced

activities to achieve learning objectives within their respective grade level.

•Teachers will have opportunities to work with peers and build relationships

that will facilitate continuing conversations and the development of their

technology skills.

•Teachers will be able to reflect on their classroom pedagogical practices and

decide how to apply the strategies they learned during training.

•Teachers will be able to select appropriate technology components to embed

within instruction when planning lessons based on state standards and

curriculum approved by the district.

Project Timeline and Implementation

PD for teachers will be delivered at the TLI, which is scheduled to take place in

July 2023. TLI is open to all teachers in the district at the end of the summer break. The

PD project will be presented in three sessions over the course of 3 days. The sessions will

begin at 8 AM and end each day at 3 p.m. Each day, the teachers will start with breakfast

and time to converse with peers, followed by learning sessions that include collaborative

work time. An hour will be provided for lunch each session and lunch will be provided.

The participants will then have extra learning and/or work time, the day will conclude

with an evaluation that will provide insight into their level of understanding of the

objectives, as well as how to enhance future PD sessions.

Project Evaluation Plan

Teachers' PD is a methodically planned process of ongoing professional training

for staff members to get them ready to perform new educational tasks, responsibilities,

and functions, adapt to new school conditions and raise their level of professional

readiness to perform educational functions. Evaluation of the efficacy of the provided PD

is an essential aspect of the project PD. The term evaluation refers to the methodical

gathering of data and the use of that data for the purpose of making the program or

project better (Iftikhar et al., 2022). Evaluation provides data that can be used to

determine if the program was successful in achieving its aims and to assist in the planning

of future training (Iftikhar et al., 2022).

To determine the level of quality offered by the PD program, it is necessary to do

an in-depth analysis of it. Formative assessments will be used at various moments during

the learning process to provide feedback on the areas of the learning process that require

more support. The use of formative evaluation will be necessary to gather immediate

feedback about whether the goal and objectives of the sessions are being met. Throughout

the sessions, formative assessment data will be collected through questions during group

collaboration time. The questions will be similar to those in the assessment survey (see

Appendix F) to provide participants time to reflect on their individual responses and to

encourage participants to collaborate with one another to generate increased discourse.

With this opportunity, it will be possible to ensure that the sessions are tailored to the

needs of the teachers. A summative assessment will be performed at the end of each

session to provide information on what has been learned as well as feedback on the

success of the learning process.

Assessment is a crucial component in establishing the individual's behavior and

attitude toward learning, in determining the instructor's decisions prior to training, during

training, and after training, and in assuring the oversight of PD activities (Yüksel &

Gündüz, 2017). Using the information from the formative and summative assessments, I

will be able to evaluate whether or not the goals and objectives of the PD project were

accomplished. In order to accomplish this task, at the end of each session, teachers will be

given a Google Survey, which can be found in Appendix F. This survey contains

questions for teachers to answer in order to evaluate the session as well as questions for

teachers to answer in order to reflect on the activities that took place during the session.

The results of these surveys will be analyzed in order to determine the most effective

methods in which PD sessions may be enhanced in order to offer the greatest potential

benefits to the individuals who take part in them.

Writing that serves as a reflection and questions based on a Likert-like scale give

information that will be used in the evaluation and reflection survey. This information

may be used to determine whether the teachers were successful in the learning process.

Participants choose the option on a Likert-like scale that most closely represents their

point of view. A Likert-like scale is an ordered scale. It is frequently used to gauge the

participants' attitudes by asking the amount to which they agree or disagree with a certain

topic or statement (Joshi et al., 2015). Furthermore, reflection writing has been critical in

helping learners gain a thorough comprehension of subjects and foster professional

proficiency. Reflective writing has been identified as one of the most effective methods

for stimulating learners' self-reflection. Evaluating self-reflection and categorizing

professionals based on their reflective writing is critical for analyzing learning processes

in 21st-century workplaces (Barthakur et al., 2022). This will provide a better

understanding of the teacher's perception of achieving the desired outcomes while also

providing documentation of learning. The combination of these two approaches will

result in a well-developed PD project evaluation plan. The feedback that is provided by

shared responses will be taken into consideration in order for adjustments to be made to

future PD sessions.

The teachers, instructional support staff, and administrators at the study site are

key stakeholders in this PD. Teachers, instructional support staff, and administrators will

cooperate in collaborative activities during the sessions. Furthermore, learners will be

expected to provide a summative evaluation and reflection at the end of each session in

order to increase the efficiency of future PD. The administration and instructional support

staff will each receive a summary of the survey results. Sharing the results of the

assessment survey with the leadership of the study site will provide them with

information about the efficiency of the PD, and also will assist them in making decisions

about ongoing support throughout the year.

The evaluation and reflection survey at the end of each session will reflect the PD

goal and objectives. The first goal of the evaluation plan is to determine if the activities

that teachers participated in during the sessions helped to increase their understanding of

integrating technology into their instruction. A second goal that will be evaluated is if the

sessions have increased teachers' confidence in their abilities to integrate technology into

their instruction. Another goal will be for teachers to reflect on new ideas they got from

the sessions and determine how they will apply the new concepts to their classroom

instruction through reflective writing. Finally, through reflective writing, teachers will

express what information was most valuable to them as individuals and the survey asks

for specific session suggestions based on the teachers’ individual needs. The ultimate

purpose of the PD sessions is to increase teachers' ability to consistently integrate

technology into classroom instruction, which will better prepare students for the

21stcentury.

Stakeholders

The proposed PD project may be beneficial to a variety of different stakeholders.

PD District administrators, school administrators, teachers, and instructional support

personnel (also known as instructional coaches) who work at the study location are the

primary stakeholders. The administrators of the school district may be able to evaluate the

efficacy of the PD and determine whether other schools could gain an advantage from

receiving the training. During the training, school administrators, teachers, and

instructional support staff will collaborate, and at the end of the session, participants will

be asked to submit a summative evaluation to help improve the efficiency of PD sessions

in the future. The summaries of the surveys will be distributed to the members of the

school leadership team, which includes district administration and instructional support

personnel. Sharing the results of the evaluation with the school leadership and the

instructional support staff serves two purposes: First, it provides those individuals with

information about the efficacy of the PD, and second, it assists those individuals in

making decisions regarding ongoing support throughout the course of the school year.

The PD project's intended target audience is comprised of general education

teachers of students in Grades K–5. This PDPD may also be beneficial to the

instructional support staff, including instructional coaches, in helping to prepare them to

provide mentoring and ongoing support both inside and outside of the classroom.

Additionally, administrators would benefit from taking part in and attending this PD

activity to help in providing ongoing support throughout the year.

Project Implications

I developed this PD project to contribute to positive social change. This PD

project is designed to aid teachers at the study site in understanding how to consistently

integrate technology into classroom instruction in Grades K-5. This PD project will focus

on providing teachers with research-based ways for using technology to instruct

elementary students.

The 3-day PD session at the study site may prepare teachers in Grades K-5 to

integrate technology into instruction, which will contribute to increased growth in

students' 21st-century skills and help prepare students to live and work as productive

citizens in the 21st-century. According to Curtis et al. (2019), as approaches to teacher

education and professional experience have evolved to meet the challenges of the

21stcentury, so have learning and teaching. As a result, this PD project is essential to help

both veteran and novice teachers in integrating technology into their instruction.

This project will improve current instructional practices at the study site by

developing teacher skills and understanding about integrating technology into their

classroom. Teachers' and school leaders' learning experiences improve their own practice

and a school's collective effectiveness, as evaluated by improved student learning,

engagement, and well-being (Harper-Hill, et al., 2020). Teachers will be better able to

integrate technology into instruction on a continuous basis, and school administration will

be able to provide improved ongoing support, which has positive social implications for

students by better preparing them for the 21st-century.

Section 4: Reflections and Conclusions

I provide reflections and conclusions based on the project study in this section.

The potential benefits of alternative methods for solving the research problem are

discussed. Considerations on leadership and change, as well as the scholarly process,

project planning and evaluation, and project development and assessment, will be

covered. Section 4 concludes with a review of the study's implications, potential

applications, and future research directions.

Project Strengths and Limitations

Strengths

The 3-day PD project discussed in Section 3 has the potential to improve

teachers', school administrators', and instructional support staff’s knowledge and

understanding of the pedagogical practices required to integrate technology into

instruction, as well as their understanding of the TPACK framework. By correctly using

the TPACK model, educators can improve classroom instruction and enhance their

students' learning (Motto, 2021). "At its core," Elliot (2017) explained, "TPACK is a

teacher knowledge framework that guides PD" (p.21). Technical (T), pedagogical (P),

and content (C) knowledge domains, as well as their overlap (PCK, TPK, TCK, and

TPACK), Motto (2021) explains give a relational map of the knowledge, skills, and

capacities required for teachers. The project's goal is to foster high levels of involvement

and engagement, as well as reflections on individual practices and biases towards the

integration of technology in classroom instruction. Each day of the PD offers opportunity

for participants to collaborate and work together.

Another strength of this project is that teachers can collaborate and exchange

technology skills while planning lessons with grade-level PLC teams. Based on the

findings of the study teachers at the study site wanted to practice using the technology

before adopting it with students in everyday instruction and developing technology

integrated lessons with their grade-level PLC teams. Teachers will spend 1 day of PD

teaching their peers how to use various technology programs that they feel they are an

expert in or they feel confident using in daily instruction. They can also practice using

these technologies and prepare lessons with them. The PD's topic and approaches were

also strengths. I designed the project to address the teacher needs described in Section 2. I

devised strategies to aid teachers in integrating technology into their day-to-day lessons

using the TPACK framework and the literature covered in Section 1.

Limitations

I believe that I designed an effective PD program that will provide teachers at the

study site with the skills and knowledge required for effective technology planning and

integration into classroom instruction. However, there may be potential problems in the

execution of instructional fidelity of technology integration into instruction because the

study site's administration and instructional support staff are the driving force behind

continuous implementation. The leadership team will be responsible for using overall

information about the effectiveness of the entire PD to help them make decisions about

the ongoing support that will be provided throughout the year. The support will be

embedded throughout grade-level PLCs as well as specified staff development days

throughout the academic year. Without a robust PLC framework and ongoing in-class

support from instructional support staff and administration, the consistency of

incorporating technology into instruction may suffer.

Another potential limitation is the project's ability to sustain ongoing support and

ongoing training of new staff. Because of the study site's close ties to the U.S. military,

many of the teachers are spouses of service members, which causes a greater rate of

teacher turnover than in other districts due to military transfers. There will be difficulties

in ensuring that ongoing training for any new employees to the study site occurs

consistently to maintain the knowledge gained from the PD project, even though

measures are in place to include district and school administration and instructional

support staff, including instructional coaches, in the training.

Recommendations for Alternative Approaches

As an alternative to the 3-day PD, monthly schoolwide staff meetings and weekly

grade-level PLC meetings could incorporate new ideas for integrating technology into

instruction. To improve self-efficacy in their capacity to integrate technology into

education on a regular basis, teachers must continue to participate in their learning and

apply it to their practice. Creating a PLC framework focusing on monthly learning and

planning sessions for grade-level teacher teams was considered as an alternative strategy.

Teachers would also be able to collaborate more frequently regarding the most effective

pedagogical practices and technological applications. This collaborative opportunity is

supported by the findings of Section 2, in which participants reported a need for greater

time to interact with grade-level peers and develop technology-integrated lessons as a

team.

Another approach was to develop a coaching and mentorship plan that allows

teachers to mentor one another by modeling pedagogical practices that integrate

technology into instruction, engaging in classroom observations, co-planning units, and

engaging in feedback sessions. This strategy has the ability to cultivate teacher leaders by

allowing them to share their strategies throughout the study site. This technique would

also enhance collaboration and teamwork inside the study site, hence enhancing school

culture. Developing a comprehensive implementation plan would offer teachers with the

ongoing support they indicated they lacked. The developed PD incorporated collaborative

frameworks and provided teachers with the skills and knowledge they lacked to

successfully integrate technology within instruction.

Further recommendation is for K-5 teachers to collaborate with other educators in

the district. This method would facilitate teachers' access to the viewpoints of their peers

within the school district and widen their knowledge base at the school under study. In

addition, the cooperation may afford teachers the chance to debate and share best

practices for integrating technology into their everyday lessons. Collaboration with other

K-5 teachers in the district would provide support for the teachers at the school under

study and create a network of professional peers outside of the study site location. The

PD sessions were able to combine elements of a PLC structure as well as a coaching and

mentorship plan, while also allowing teachers to engage in learning and reflect on their

practices and learning experiences.

Scholarship, Project Development, and Leadership and Change

Scholarship

I learned a lot about the concept and method of scholarly research while

performing this study. Prior to embarking on this study, I researched various relevant

subjects of interest concerning elementary school technology use. I chose this topic after

learning about the difficulties teachers experience with technology at the study site.

Teachers at the research location were mostly concerned about not knowing how to use

technology in their classrooms and not feeling secure about using technology within their

instruction. After determining the problem and objective of this study, I began the process

of collecting literature relating to the teachers' concerns. Aligning the problem, purpose,

and RQs was another critical step in creating a scholarly research project. Throughout the

research process, I became more committed in finding additional support for my topic in

recent literature and understanding how technology impacted instruction. I acquired a

significant amount of literature to support the study after weeks of exhaustive research.

What I learnt from this research allowed me to broaden my ability to offer coaching

support and best practices when collaborating with teachers on instructional methods and

how to embed technology to increase student participation and enrich the students'

experience within the classroom. I also learned how critical it is to effectively explore the

literature to deliver a comprehensive and scholarly study.

During the development of my project, I faced numerous hurdles, including the

world effectively closing due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the world of education

being forced to go virtual. This unexpected development caused a problem in that

teachers were now required to use technology with little time to prepare. As the

COVID19 pandemic and the forced shift to online education altered teachers' perceptions

of technology integration within instruction, I included additional questions to my

interviews. What I learned during the data collection process was that participants still

lacked confidence in their abilities to integrate technology into instruction, and that the

pandemic had revealed a problem that existed not only at the study site, but throughout

the field of education. This resulted in more research and literature being gathered to

create a more well-rounded study relevant to current events in the world.

Project Development

After 12 years of teaching at multiple elementary schools, this project was created.

Due to my husband's several military transfers, I had taught throughout the southern and

western regions of the United States in grades K through 5. Despite technological

advancements and the growing availability of technology in the classroom, I saw an

increasing reluctance among teachers at various schools and grade levels to incorporate

technology into their lesson plans. As I observed the obstacles teachers faced, I was

concerned for their success because I had a different perspective on technology and

embraced any new technology or idea that was presented to me, and I wished to

comprehend the reluctance of other teachers in the grade levels I taught to use

technology. When teachers at the research site began exhibiting the same characteristics I

had observed in schools around the country, I began designing this study. My goal was to

produce a study that would contribute to the changing environment in education and how

teachers might be supported in guiding students to become technologically savvy citizens

able to work and live in the 21st-century. I was astounded by the sheer volume of

information accessible on this issue when I began my research. The evaluated peer

reviewed studies helped me acquire knowledge and support for the current study.

Participating in academic research has benefited my PD. The study process strengthened

my perseverance, patience, and desire to overcome obstacles. Years of research, study,

and project creation culminated in a contribution to the school system. The goal of the

3day PD was to provide teachers with the skills and knowledge necessary to begin the

process of consistently integrating technology into classroom.

Leadership and Change

Working on this project allowed me to obtain valuable experience that contributed

to my development as a leader, and I am grateful for that. The research, data gathering,

and planning methods that I was a part of helped me get a more well-rounded perspective,

both in my capacity as a professional and in my prospective role as a researcher in the

future. Although I am aware that the people who took part in this study project are the

only ones who stand to gain from them, I believe the information that was discussed can

be beneficial to other people as well. It is still a leader's obligation to listen to others and

provide what was necessary for a good change in the knowledge and performance of

others, even if the information that was supplied was not utilized. This was something

that came to my attention recently. Since I have been a part of this doctorate capstone

process, my potential for developing further as a leader has been enhanced.

As I have gone through my time as a doctoral student at Walden, I have been both

encouraged and pushed to be a catalyst for change. This has been one of the most

rewarding aspects of my experience here. The process of finishing the capstone project

was crucial in shaping both my aspirations and my capabilities to play a positive role in

the process of bringing about positive change in the field of education. My experience has

taught me that leaders are those who inspire other individuals to join them in effecting

positive change. The purpose of this PD initiative was to foster the growth of teacher

leaders among the participants so that they may, as a direct result of the exercise, become

change agents in their own schools. My eyes have been opened to the fact that maturing

into a change agent was a process that takes place over time. After this initiative is

finished, I will not stop trying to be a positive part of the change that is happening in the

world. This study has influenced my readiness to support more efforts to integrate

technology consistently in Grades K-5, and it has made me want to do so more broadly

than only at the study site. The results of this research have provided me with the

inspiration and the drive that I need to continue developing as a change agent and a

leader. My pursuit of a doctoral degree at Walden University has provided me with a

significant amount of motivation, for my development as a leader.

Reflection on Importance of the Work

As I think more about this PD project, I am convinced that the teachers who work

at this study site will benefit from the PD. The challenges of consistently integrating

technology within instruction in Grades K-5 are well documented in this study. The

purpose of this PD project was to address the perceptions of teachers regarding the

integration of technology and pedagogy in Grades K-5 education. Teachers at the study

site in Grades K-5 could improve the consistency of technology integration within

instruction if they used the skills and strategies presented in the project. This PD project

will, in the end, contribute to improvements in the consistent implementation and

integration of technology at the school study site.

In the process of reflecting on this research study, I started thinking about how

much time was required to complete it. I also took into consideration the iterative nature

of the completion of scholarly writing. I was aware that in this research investigation,

having a comprehensive understanding was more important than working quickly. The

results obtained required a significant investment of both time and effort. The topic of

integrating technology into instruction has become a central concern as the COVID-19

pandemic enters its 4th year. As a result, the findings of this study contribute to the

existing body of research on technology integration in K-5 education. The amount of time

and effort put into this study was a contributing factor in the success and importance of

the PD project.

Implications, Applications, and Directions for Future Research

Implications for Positive Social Change

This study on teachers' perspectives of technology integration and pedagogy in K5

education may support positive social change in the classroom. The study focused on

teachers' perspectives of technology integration and pedagogy in K-5 education. The

purpose of this study was to investigate the ways in which the experiences and

perspectives of K-5 teachers influenced the ways in which those teachers used technology

inside of their classrooms and the pedagogical practices that those teachers employed.

The findings of the study showed that the educators at the location under study had

difficulty integrating technology on a consistent basis into their lessons. This highlighted

the necessity of providing educators with opportunities for PD to enhance the

effectiveness of instructional technology. The PD project that was proposed to last for 3

days would equip teachers at the study site with pedagogical approaches and planning

practices for routinely incorporating technology into instruction for students in Grades K-

Positive social change is something that is encouraged and valued at Walden

University. The potential impact of the findings should have a considerable influence

within school districts and other organizations to encourage constructive social change in

the practices of PD that are currently in place to support instruction that integrates

technology consistently in Grades K-5. The findings of the study have the potential to

support and contribute to positive social change by suggesting that school districts

provide open and intentional teacher PD plans, as well as purposeful follow up to support

the integration of technology within instruction. Before developing PD, it was important

to consider the views and suggestions of teachers regarding the PD requirements for

technology within instruction. This allowed for the successful implementation of the

positive social change.

It was important to note that one methodological inference gained from this study

resulted from the procedure of collecting the data, and that implication should be

considered. Because of the limits imposed by COVID-19, I conducted the interviews

via the Zoom platform. This structure presented a variety of obstacles that impeded the

process's natural progression. For instance, both the interviewer and the interviewee

occasionally had a slow internet connection. In addition, the Zoom platform made it

difficult to interpret the nonverbal clues that the participants displayed. If COVID-19 no

longer restricts how interviews may be performed, I would urge other researchers to

conduct interviews in person whenever possible.

Applications for Teaching Practice

The application for the PD is accessible to teachers at the school under study who

teach students in Grades K through 5. The PD has the potential to meet the pedagogical

needs of teachers by delivering information about methods for planning for technology

within instruction and integrating technology into their current pedagogical practices. The

PD program may also provide an opportunity for teachers to work together to discuss

effective strategies for lesson planning and student instruction related to the integration of

technology in the classroom.

Directions for Future Research

The PD provided by this project aided teachers in integrating technology into the

classroom. Future research might look into how sharing pedagogical information and

TPACK within grade level PLCs can assist teachers to improve their TPACK

competencies by encouraging knowledge acquisition from professional colleagues.

During implementation, instructional fidelity can be tested using classroom observations

and teacher planning materials. Student achievement tracking could be examined in the

context of how PD of teachers influences achievement and school rating. Another avenue

for future research could be to investigate the continued support of school administration

and the usage of instructional support personnel in continual PD, as well as the impact of

peer mentors and coaches at the study site. Finally, future researchers could use the

RANDA teacher educator effectiveness rating system (Colorado Department of

Education, 2021) to track teachers' classroom performance at the study location and

analyze the effects of PD on the educator effectiveness rating rubric’s technology

elements.

Conclusion

The purpose of this basic qualitative study was to explore the teachers’

perceptions of integrating technology consistently within classroom instruction in Grades

K-5 at the elementary school under study to understand why technology was not being

implemented within instruction consistently. The problem was researched to determine

teachers' perceptions of the pedagogical practices they consider to be necessary for

consistently integrating technology within instruction, as well as teachers' perceptions of

their ability to consistently integrate technology within instruction. Participants were

given the opportunity to expound in Section 2 on the reasons they do not believe they are

able to integrate technology into instruction on a consistent basis. The causes for this

were a lack of preparation with grade level teams, a lack of training, a lack of

collaboration amongst peers, support, and time available to test and plan technology

within lessons. The participants believed that formal training combined with

opportunities for collaboration would provide the skills and knowledge they required to

be more successful at integrating technology throughout their classroom on a consistent

basis.

These findings from the data that were gathered in Section 2 served as the

foundation for the creation of a PD plan, which had the following objectives as its

primary focus:

•Teachers will be able to explore, identify, and integrate technology enhanced

activities to achieve learning objectives within their respective grade levels.

•Teachers will have opportunities to work with peers and build relationships

that will facilitate continuing conversations and the development of their

technical skills.

•Teachers will be able to reflect on their classroom pedagogical practices and

decide how to apply the strategies they learned during training.

•Teachers will be able to select appropriate technology components to embed

within instruction when planning lessons based on state standards and

curriculum approved by the district.

Effective use of technology in instruction requires altering pedagogical techniques and

overcoming hurdles to integration. Every participant in the study acknowledged the

challenges of integrating technology into instruction. Despite the challenges, most

participants were willing to retain an open mind and learn how to integrate technology

into their daily training and every participant wanted further technology integration

training. Developing and providing a rigorous PD program for teachers would give them

the confidence and abilities to integrate technology into classroom on a consistent basis.

In summary, PD was deemed the greatest solution to the lack of consistent

technology use in K-5 instruction at the study site. This was determined because PD

matched the needs of the teachers in relation to the RQs. The PD was designed directly as

a response to the study's findings on why teachers do not routinely use technology in the

classroom. Participating in PD events improves each participant's practice and the

school's performance.

Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration and Pedagogy in Kindergarten–Grade 5

Students also viewed