Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AN OPPORTUNITY TO COLLABORATE
by
Kenneth Agcaoili
________________________________________________________________
August 2012
Copyright 2012
Kenneth Agcaoili
UMI 3542364
Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my family and friends, who stuck by me through
this challenging, yet rewarding chapter of my life. I would like to thank Mr. Brian
Mizuguchi, my first principal, who saw me through the end of this dissertation. Only
he will know how crucial his role was in completing this dissertation. My thanks
also goes out to my dissertation chair, Dom, for his constructive feedback, inspiring
articles, and non-stop humor. Melora and Larry also deserve thanks for serving on
my dissertation committee and providing feedback, which helped me think about
different facets to explore in this dissertation. Finally, I would like to credit the
state-level technology administrators and school-level principals and technology
coordinators who participated in the study: your efforts made this dissertation a
success.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
ii
List of Tables
iv
Abstract
Chapter One:
Chapter Two:
Literature Review
10
Chapter Three:
Methodology
44
Chapter Four:
Analysis
52
Chapter Five:
83
Chapter Six:
Epilogue
91
References
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
Appendix B: Interview Questions for Principals and Technology
Coordinators at the School
Appendix C: Interview Questions for State-Level Technology
Administrators
95
101
101
106
107
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
57
Table 2.
63
Table 3.
65
Table 4.
66
Table 5.
70
Table 6.
73
Table 7.
79
Table 8.
80
iv
ABSTRACT
Despite years of reform efforts in public education, the classrooms of today
are more like classrooms of 30 years ago, and less like the classrooms intended
according to the goals of reform. One of the goals of reform was to increase
collaborative structures within classrooms, to enable collaboration beyond the school
campus. Collaboration beyond the school campus is thought to allow learners to
participate in a knowledge creation community. Participation in a knowledge
creation community enables learners within a school to collaborate not only with
other learners, but also with experts in a given field. Ultimately, instead of
mimicking subject area experts, learners are able to participate alongside experts,
attempting to solve real world problems.
Collaboration beyond the school campus can be made possible through
technology. Online collaboration tools and the all-encompassing cloud have
sprouted up as possible solutions to facilitate collaboration. However, Google Apps
has emerged as the front runner, because of its unique ability for multiple users to
simultaneously collaborate on a single document in real time. Additionally, Google
Apps provides numerous tools that not only have collaboration as an inherent
feature, but are also specialized to complete numerous tasks.
This study sought to examine how Google Apps improved collaborative
structures in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE), and what hindered the
implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE. The results showed that Google Apps
improved collaborative structures in HIDOE, but the improvements were mainly to
v
enhance and not change pedagogical practices. The results also showed that barriers
within HIDOE exist, which hinder the implementation of Google Apps. However,
state-level technology administrators have applied administrative innovations, which
allowed for numerous technical innovations.
vi
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama emphasized
innovation as the main driving force for producing the jobs of tomorrow (Obama,
2011). To ensure that the jobs of tomorrow will be in America and not overseas,
Obama challenged the nation to win the race to educate our children in the fields of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). In order to win this
race, public education will need to drastically change what is happening in the
classrooms. Although years of attempts at reforming education have been occurring,
Americas classrooms remain similar to pre-reform classrooms (Christensen, Horn,
& Johnson, 2008). More specific to STEM education, Stigler, Gallimore and Hiebert
(2000) concluded from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) that, despite years of reform efforts, math and science classrooms in
America have changed little. Reform efforts in math and science revolve around
focusing on reasoning and thinking skills, rather than on basic skills or memorization
of facts. Before the presidents vision is realized, Americas public education system
will need to make great steps toward innovations which promote classrooms where
the maximum opportunity for STEM learning will occur. In order for these
innovations to be implemented, public education needs to look to examples within its
organizations where innovations are occurring. These examples of innovations may
provide insight as to how and why the adoption and implementation of an innovation
is possible.
1
construction often happens in social learning settings (Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989). The authors theorize that situated cognition makes knowledge explicit, and
limits the abstraction of knowledge from traditional schooling. This is echoed in
Saloman (1993), who observes that [k]nowledge is commonly socially constructed,
through collaborative efforts toward shared objectives or by dialogues and
challenges brought about by differences in persons perspectives. Saloman quotes
Vygotski, who is commonly associated with social constructivist theory.
Recent theorists see the advancement of knowledge as the primary purpose of
education (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). They see education as responsible for
helping students participate and find their place in this knowledge building society.
The authors note that current STEM methods emphasize idea generation, which
leads to research. They also argue that idea generation is natural to humans, but that
a challenge lies in looking at a current idea and trying to improve on that idea. An
emphasis on, and explicit teaching of idea improvement is needed to advance
knowledge. Student theories, generated through current inquiry methods, should not
be valued according to how a theory conforms to current belief, but how it
contributes to further advancement of knowledge. This change in paradigm will also
transform the classroom from imitating what advanced scholars do, to a classroom
where the emphasis is on advancing the state of knowledge in the classroom itself.
Ultimately, students within these classrooms need to know their place in the
knowledge building community of the world. Scardamalia and Bereiter purposefully
use knowledge building, rather than knowledge construction which is usually
3
Collaborative tools do exist, but education has not readily adopted tools that
allow for collaboration. An example of such a tool is Google Apps. The Internet
search engine company, Google, provides many innovative web services, which are
free of charge. Google Apps is a collection of tools which can be thought of as a free
replacement for the Microsoft Office suite. Google Apps also provides the user with
collaborative functions that add functionality to the traditional word processing,
spreadsheet, and presentation tools. Although there are many different collaborative
tools on the web, Google has remained a front runner in this market (Hall, Nousala,
& Vines, 2010). Googles reign of the online software collaboration market is
mainly due to it being the only solution that allows for multiple users to
simultaneously edit a common document. Google also offers an enterprise level of
Google Apps, Google Apps for Enterprise, which allows businesses to monitor and
control email, documents, and sign-on capabilities. Google Apps for Enterprise
comes at a premium of $30 per user. However, schools and universities are allowed
to enjoy the same benefits of Google Apps for Enterprise, through Google Apps for
Education, which is free.
Research Questions
1. How is Google Apps improving collaboration among faculty, students,
and external subject area experts in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools?
2. What hinders the implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE elementary
and middle schools?
tools within Google Apps allow for unprecedented opportunities for collaboration
between multiple stakeholders.
The basic goal of researching how Google Apps is being used in HIDOE
elementary and middle schools is for program improvement. The information
gathered from this research would inform decision-makers as to how Google Apps
could be used to encourage classrooms where collaborative projects are valued.
Ultimately, classrooms that value collaborative projects would yield actual
knowledge construction and advancement, rather than regurgitation of facts.
Limitations
This formative evaluation will be studying innovation within the public
sector. Research in innovation for the public sector has pointed to many examples
where innovations have occurred (Albury, 2005). In an attempt to make innovation a
core characteristic in the public sector, Albury (2005, p. 1) created a framework for
thinking and action, which includes these four major components:
study of one component will provide insight into the innovative environment of
HIDOE.
Definition of Terms
Collaboration Direct participation by two or more actors in designing,
producing and/or marketing a product (process) (Polenske, 2004, p. 1031).
Common Document An online Google Apps collaborative document, which
may include, but is not limited to, Docs, Spreadsheets, Calendars, Presentations, etc.
Knowledge Construction Processes by which students solve problems and
construct understanding of concepts, phenomena, and situations, considered within
cognitive psychology (van Aalst, 2009, p. 261).
Knowledge Creation A group of learners improving on ideas to solve a
common problem, and recognizing their place in the broader community of learners
(van Aalst, 2009).
Knowledge Sharing Transmission of knowledge between people (van
Aalst, 2009).
Software as a Service (SaaS) The online delivery of software (Dubey &
Wagle, 2007).
Technology Coordinator HIDOE employee responsible for, but not limited
to, the maintenance and implementation of any device that uses electricity.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The focus of research on innovation can be organized over time into three
theoretical perspectives: the individualist perspective, the structural perspective, and
the interactive process perspective (Slappendel, 1996). Early research focused on
characteristics and actions of individuals to explain innovative behavior. However,
the individualist perspective was overtaken by research focusing on structural
properties or environmental characteristics to explain innovations in organizations.
Although researchers acknowledged that the two perspectives were intertwined,
research tended to isolate the two into separate branches of study. For example, a
study taking the individualist perspective may emphasize the characteristics of the
leader, while paying less attention to the context which the leader was operating in.
Thus, a third perspective, the interactive perspective, emerged, which attempts to
synthesize and analyze the interconnectedness of the individualist and structuralist
perspectives. Studying innovation through the interactive process best allows
researchers to explain how and why organizations successfully implemented an
innovation.
Like Slappendels interactive process, Albury (2005) provides a framework,
specific to public sector organizations, which is also non-linear and represents the
interacting parts of the innovative process. Alburys framework for successful
innovation in the public sector includes: a) the generation of possibilities; b) the
trailing and prototyping of promising ideas; c) replication and scaling up; and d)
10
analysis and learning. Alburys framework will be used in this study as a model for
thinking and action. However, only one component, the trailing and prototyping of
promising ideas, will be examined. This component focuses on the potential in
organizations for numerous innovative ideas. Once this potential is unleashed, the
task of selecting which innovation to further develop is revealed. Senior managers
need to accomplish this task with selection criteria. If the criteria are too stringent,
innovators may be hesitant and significant innovations will be inhibited. If the
criteria are too lax, then resources will be wasted on failed innovations. Another
factor that affects the selection criteria is risk. Albury notes that public services
generally carry a higher level of risk, because of higher levels of public scrutiny, and
threats to quality of life which need to be accounted for. The tendency for public
services to be risk-averse means that special attention needs to be paid to risk
management. One strategy to manage risk has been pilots and simulations. Pilots
and simulations can test innovations in an environment which would limit the
exposure usually associated with public sector innovations. This study looks at
schools in the public sector that are piloting Google Apps as a collaborative tool.
Although the primary focus of the study is zeroing in on how this innovation is being
used, the adoption and implementation of this innovation will also be studied.
To provide an initial insight of the adoption and implementation of
innovation, types of innovations will be discussed. Daft (1978) defines two distinct
types of innovations: technical innovations, and administrative innovations.
Technical innovations occur in the technical system of the organization and are
11
directly related to the its primary work activity. Technical innovations should not be
confused with technological innovations, which are innovations directly resulting
from the use of technology. The author delves further into the distinction between
technical and administrative innovations. Daft terms the distinction as a dual-core
model of innovation. Technical innovations are more likely to originate from the
line workers, where the need for innovation is driven by what the actual workers are
doing. Administrative innovations are more likely to originate from the top levels of
management. The dual-core model emerges as innovation can either be top-down
or bottom-up. An interesting finding by Daft is that the technical innovations studied
were numerous, and almost always adopted. The line workers are usually the largest
group in an organization, and their thoughts and ideas are generated directly from
their day-to-day work. Administrators within an organization are less likely to effect
a technical innovation, because they are further from the actual work going on.
Additionally, as the professional level of the line workers increased, the amount and
level of implementation of innovation increased. As the professional level of the line
workers decreased, the level of technical innovation proposals from administrators
increased; however, the level of implementation decreased, as the ideas for technical
innovation were less relevant to the line workers. This is crucial, because
professional levels of line workers are difficult to maintain as budgets are cut and
salaries for the line workers are less competitive.
Damanpour and Evan (1984) also found that administrative innovations lead
to more technical innovations in the long run. For example, an administrative
12
levels of implementation. This is contrasted with organizations that are more formal,
centralized, and less complex. These organizations typically foster higher
frequencies of adoption and higher levels of implementation. These two distinct
structures are difficult, if not impossible, to allow to coexist within a single
organization. Thus, a struggle between encouraging idea generation or idea
implementation emerges. This study investigates HIDOE, which is a highly
centralized, highly formal organization regarding educational matters. However,
regarding technological matters, HIDOE is less centralized and less formal (Nguyen,
2008). A less centralized and less formal structure would make the adoption and
implementation of Google Apps quite low. However, if Google Apps were to
improve learning and have crossover into increased educational value, the more
formal, centralized, and less complex HIDOE could take this innovative idea and
support higher rates of adoption and implementation.
Google Apps is a technical innovation involving technology, which would
translate into educational value if Google Apps increased the number of students
entering STEM careers. In order to increase the number of students entering STEM
careers, classrooms must transform into environments where more students succeed
in STEM classes which occurs in classrooms that encourage collaboration.
Technology plays an important role in improving collaborative structures, which
involve learners beyond the school campus. Google Apps provides the necessary
tools to facilitate collaboration beyond the school campus. Although Google Apps
14
15
and then assemble the partial results into the final output. In collaboration, partners
do the work together (p. 8).
The reason for using either cooperation or collaboration primarily revolves
around the goals of a given classroom lesson. If the purpose of the lesson is to have
a product that is produced by learners working on separate parts according to ability,
then cooperation might be emphasized. However, if the purpose of the lesson is to
have two or more learners working together to create a product, then collaboration
would be emphasized.
Differentiating between cooperation and collaboration in the classroom
provides insight to reasons and purposes for emphasizing either of the two.
However, the scientific community may emphasize collaboration, because without
collaboration, specialized research may not occur. In a study of collaboration
between international scientists, Wagner, Brahmakalum, Jackson, Yoda, and Wong
(2001) found that scientists had a scientific imperative to collaborate. Factors such
as expertise contributed to the motivation of scientists to collaborate beyond their
countrys borders. Scientific experts may be attracted to certain parts of the world
where there are unique research opportunities. Local experts at these unique
locations may have a higher level of understanding of the research opportunities,
because they have lived in the area and have local knowledge. The knowledge and
opportunity afforded by the local experts would contribute to the authors idea of
creating a scientific imperative to collaborate. Through collaboration, external
scientists would be able to depend on local experts to gain more knowledge about a
16
subject. In turn, the local experts would be able to depend on external scientists for
expertise and resources not available locally. The benefits gained by collective
behaviors, in both the scientific community and business world, motivate
participation in collaborative behaviors.
As mentioned in the opening paragraph of Chapter One, classrooms of today,
despite years of attempts at reform, still remain more similar than dissimilar to prereform classrooms (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008; Stigler, Gallimore, &
Hiebert, 2000). Transforming classrooms to realize the potential of producing more
students entering STEM careers could be accomplished through collaboration. One
example of collaboration transforming classrooms is the idea of computer supported
collaborative learning (CSCL). CSCL offers tools and means for teachers to
transform their classrooms into knowledge creation communities (Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 2006). Knowledge creation communities provide learners with the
opportunity to gain knowledge of a particular area of study. Scardamalia and
Bereiter emphasize that knowledge of something should not be confused with
knowledge about something. For example, knowledge about driving a car would
include being able to state all of the rules and procedures for driving a car. However,
knowledge of driving a car would include being able to articulate the nuances of
driving a car, which could only be gained by actually driving a car. Sadly,
classrooms are dominated with practices that emphasize learning knowledge about
something. Google Apps provides the tools necessary to implement CSCL, which
creates the opportunity to transform classrooms into knowledge creating
17
18
The third cause is the impulse for productivity. Technology allows for
efficient teaching and learning. Being able to learn more in less time has historically
been a goal for education. When this goal is tied with technology, the results are
thought to be limitless. However, Cuban also indicates that the same beliefs were
held about the overhead projector, which was thought to narrow the gap between
teaching and learning.
Hedlund (2011) echoes Cubans finding that there is often a struggle when
implementing computers as a productivity tool in the classroom. Former
pedagogical practices applied using computers can actually be less efficient than
without computers. Hedlund goes on to say that pedagogical practices need to be
modified in order to make computers effective tools within the classroom. He
further describes that teachers in the study saw the computer as something that is not
designed for classroom use. Instead, a belief formed that it came from the corporate
or leisure world, and was not compatible with the classroom. However, he posits
that with the possibility of breaking down the barriers of a traditional classroom, the
difference between leisure and business is only a click away.
Innovative technological implementation strategies are stifled not only in K12 education, but also in higher education. Pettit and Kukulska-Hulme (2011)
concluded that, although innovative implementation of technology was a goal of
technological implementation, the most obvious evidence of technology
implementation was that students have better access to information. Although this
evidence represents an advantage gained by technology implementation, it is hardly
19
innovative. The benefits and enthusiasm gained with Web 2.0 technologies, such as
Facebook, are difficult to implement within formal education. The expectations of
instructors and professors hardly changed. The implementation of technology did
not automatically transform the product into a Web 2.0 product.
An example of pedagogical change with the use of technology is evidenced
by Gee (2003). The author introduces the concept of using principles in video games
to improve student learning. Principles of on demand and just in time are
examples of what makes video games popular. Related to learning, if classrooms
were altered to include these principles, on demand learning and just in time
learning would create an ideal environment for students to be motivated to persevere
through confusion and initial discomfort with the intended learning concepts.
Gee also points to the ability of video games to adjust to a players outer edge
of competence, in order to make the playability of a game appropriate for the player.
In the classroom, the zone of proximal development is where students are at their
optimum potential for learning. If classrooms were to establish this zone for every
child, more learning would occur. As games and classrooms begin to merge, Gee
sees playing as character as relevant for both environments. As students enter
science classrooms, they learn best if they start to act and talk as scientists. In this
sense, a school that uses the principles found in video games may create better
environments for preparing students for the workplace than current school
classrooms.
20
Rather, traditional means were used to assess the final product, which may have been
contributed to by research from the Internet. The interaction between the features of
the Internet and the process of teaching provides for an atmosphere with a high
potential for successes and challenges. The result is that teachers alter their
pedagogical practices, which may help or hurt a childs success. Teachers level of
pedagogical content knowledge directly affects the chances for success. The more
teachers know about how to teach a subject, the more likely it is that they will be
able to use the Internet as an effective instructional tool. For the most part, teachers
have been left with an instructional tool which they have been charged to figure out
how to use, with little or no support for how to use it effectively.
Becker and Anderson (1999) found that there are three types of teachers more
likely to use the Internet in their classrooms: teachers who are younger; teachers who
are leaders in their profession; and teachers with constructivist-based pedagogical
beliefs. The authors concede that the age factor may diminish over time, but at the
time of the study, teachers who were younger were more familiar with the
technology. Thus, their age was a major factor.
The second factor of teacher leadership pertains to the shared enthusiasm for
using a different instructional tool in the classroom. The enthusiasm shared by
teachers is thought to encourage more Internet use in the classrooms. As more
teachers use the Internet, more contact time and dialog between colleagues leads to a
better understanding of how to use Internet in the classrooms. This factor is
22
interesting, because the frequent informal contact between teachers seems to increase
the level of implementation.
The third, and perhaps most important factor, relates to certain beliefs
teachers possess about learning. The Internet lifts many barriers around the
traditional textbook-based curriculum, and allows teachers and students to explore a
vast amount of information readily accessible from within a classroom. Teachers
who have constructivist beliefs about education would more likely value this
seemingly limitless amount of information. However, teachers who prefer a
standardized and prescribed lesson may view the Internet as many uncontrolled
variables, which would not benefit their classroom. Further, the authors speculate
that providing the Internet to textbook-based teachers would not necessarily
encourage improved pedagogical practices.
Another form of technology being used as a tool for collaboration is video
gaming culture. Gee (2003) points to online gamers creating distributed and
dispersed knowledge in a community. Online gamers create levels, which allow
others in the community to face challenges and complete missions which would
otherwise not be available without the community collaborating on a project.
Relating this to the classroom, Sheldon (2011) takes the principles behind
multiplayer gaming environments to create classrooms where content is taught
through a role-playing game environment. Learners within the gaming environment
work together, motivated to accomplish tasks not only to earn points, but also to
achieve a common goal. Sheldon gives an example of a middle school classroom
23
24
25
Additionally, the quality of the product was actually higher when composed in an
online environment. Another contributing factor is if an assignment is isolated as a
single collaborative project, while the bulk of the class is individually assessed. This
may lead to students being less enthusiastic about collaborative projects, because
they must rely on fellow students to maintain individual grade point averages.
MacDonald points to the transcript or online record of activities which is kept
during the online collaboration activity. This transcript is significant, since it keeps
track of who contributed what, and how much. More importantly, the record can be
reviewed for evidence of negotiation of meaning and conflicting points of view.
This is important, because students can freely participate in contradicting each other
by revising what the other has written, but the online transcript can keep a complete
record allowing reversion back to prior revisions.
Gunawardena, Lowe, and Anderson (1997) found that current means of
assessing online interactions tend to focus on the parts, or the individual posts of
members within a community trying to solve a problem. The authors developed an
assessment instrument which focuses on the whole product which the community
created. Although the assessment of the parts is important, the outcome from the
community working together online defines the success of the group. Instead of
trying to claim that collaboration and knowledge construction is occurring, because
individuals contributed to a whole solution, the developed assessment sees the
patterns and outcomes which formed the solution.
27
Lee, Chan, and van Aalst (2006) studied how students were assessed in
collaborative environments. Students were allowed to post notes of ideas and
thoughts to an online bulletin board. The students could see each others notes and
were encouraged to use and build off of each others ideas. The authors were
concerned with problems typically associated with collaborative environments,
where students participated as a group but were assessed as individuals. The authors
set up the assessments to value content and inquiry. The value placed on inquiry
emphasized the process which the students went through to build knowledge as a
group. Further, students were explicitly taught how to interact through online
discourse, which facilitated the knowledge construction process. The end portfolio
documented their process and their analysis of the discourse. The authors concluded
that learning must be aligned with assessment in order to promote knowledge
construction.
Online collaboration tools exist in the corporate world also. Majchrzak,
Wagner, and Yates (2006) studied corporate wiki user behavior. Corporate wikis are
collaboration tools used to encourage collaboration within and between private
organizations. The authors sought to investigate if wikis were sustainable, and what
types of benefits wikis provided for users. The authors found that wikis were
sustainable depending on the length of existence, the number of participants, and the
frequency of access. As long as people were reading and contributing to a wiki, the
wiki would continue to exist. The authors also found that benefits to participation in
corporate wikis included enhanced reputation, making work easier, and improving
28
processes within an organization. However, not all wikis provided the same benefits.
Wikis that involved tasks requiring novel solutions were more likely to provide
benefits than wikis which involved routine tasks. The tools within Google Apps can
be thought of as a wiki, where contributors are able to contribute to a common
document like contributors to a wiki.
Networked computers and the Internet tore down the barriers between the
classroom and the world outside of school. Through the use of the Internet, cloud
computing emerged as a possible tool for schools to use. Additionally, cloud
computing promotes collaboration, which is necessary for the goals of knowledge
construction and knowledge advancement. The tools for collaboration are available
to teachers, but classrooms are still not valuing collaboration. The next section of
this literature review will examine the barriers to innovation which may hinder the
use of technological tools.
Barriers to Innovation
As previously mentioned, numerous educational innovations have been
adopted within the education system. However, somewhere between adoption and
implementation, innovations are likely to disappear or change radically (Gross,
Giaquinta, & Bernstein, 1971; Goodlad, 1969). The next section of this review will
examine the barriers to innovation in education.
Pincus (1974) differentiates public education from other organizations, as not
having competitive market forces, which generally work toward economic and social
29
Johnson, 2008). However, Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, and Byers (2002) observed that
(lack of) teacher proficiency with technology served as a barrier to implementing
technology innovation in the classroom. In order for students to utilize technology
tools, a string of successful technology steps need to occur: the network must be
ready; the computers must turn on and connect to the network; the software on the
computer must start up correctly; and the browser must display the webpage
correctly. If any of these steps fail to function properly, students are not able to
utilize the technology tools. Added to this, the paradigm shift of being in the cloud
proves to be another complicating layer. A teachers technology proficiency
determines if he or she is able to troubleshoot and solve the problems successfully.
Past research also delved into teacher technology use. Bebell, Russell, and
ODwyer (2004) argue that past research in educational technology may not have
provided informative data, because researchers may have not known how teachers
were using technology. The authors believe that a multi-facted approach is
necessary to measure teachers use of technology, which includes not just whether or
not a technology is being used, but also how a teacher is using technology, and for
what purposes. Teacher technology use is further complicated by the variety of
technologies and varied ways that technologies can be used. Trying to measure a
variety of technology uses with a single measure limits the information that can be
discovered.
Technological barriers outside of the classroom relate closely to the
previously mentioned check and balance of not harming the interests of various
31
stakeholders (Pincus, 1974). The risks involved with technology, and cloud
computing specifically, may lead public education to reject its use.
Assink (2006) found that while internal and external forces encourage
innovative exploration, internal forces that resist change often prevent innovation.
Assink grouped these internal forces into five clusters, one of which involves the
attitudes within an organization. An organizations inability to make a distinction
between meaningful risk and meaningless risk creates a risk-averse climate, in which
the mere introduction of change is inhibited by the fear of taking the risk necessary
for change.
Sultan (2010) cited the top two concerns with respect to adopting cloud
computing as data privacy and security. Education institutions may need to wait
until lawmakers figure out the implications and issues behind the use of cloud
computing. Until then, cloud users and providers will need to be creative in their
adoption of cloud computing to overcome such hurdles. This creativity may include
taking a meaningful risk to implement cloud computing.
Security is often downplayed by cloud providers. Talbot (2009) noted that
cloud providers point to the risk of trusting many different individual companies to
keep something secure, versus trusting them Google, for example to keep
many different companies data private and secure. Additionally, USB sticks are
easily lost by employees who need to transfer data from one computer to another.
The risk associated with cloud computing involves trusting one company, which may
32
accounts. The hardware to run this email server cost HIDOE $50,000, plus an
annual renewal of license fee for $5,000. According to best practices, this server
needed to be replaced every three years. The time required to administer the server
added to the total cost to HIDOE of managing and housing student email accounts.
The former assistant superintendent of technology made the decision to discontinue
the practice of providing email to students. The reasons mostly pointed to budgetary
constraints and the labor involved in maintaining this server. Schools were left to
provide email to their students by setting up their own email servers or by using
external email providers.
Popular and free email service providers like Hotmail, Yahoo, and Google
emerged as solutions for schools to implement student email. This practice was
questioned, because there was no ability for schools to centrally monitor emails or
investigate misuse. Another reason utilizing free email providers was questioned
was the restrictive policies these external email providers forced users to agree to.
One school in particular had a complaint lodged against them regarding the
schoolwide use of Gmail. The complaint claimed that students were forced to agree
to Googles Terms of Service (TOS), and that children under 18 were agreeing to a
legally binding agreement. Googles TOS included the line: You may not use the
Services and may not accept the Terms if (a) you are not of legal age to form a
binding contract with Google.... Since all students at this school were under the age
of 18, the complaint claimed that they could not use Google services.
34
Pedagogical Barriers
Another barrier to technology implementation is that, although teachers
utilize online collaboration tools, they also often attempt to fit traditional
pedagogical practices into the online environment. Marginal use of computers is less
due to lack of funds, ill-prepared teachers, or risk-averse administrators, and more
due to the dominant cultural beliefs in education. The dominant cultural belief in
education that teaching is telling and learning is listening hampers the spread of
technological implementation in schools. Further, age-graded schools, agreed-upon
knowledge through textbooks, and bell schedules which limit the amount of time for
interaction, all contribute to perpetuation of these cultural beliefs. Breaking down
these cultural beliefs is essential if education is to use technology in innovative ways,
rather than using technology within the existing, traditional structures, and merely
enhancing, not changing, the educational experience (Henri, 1992; Cuban, 1993).
Prior studies of online collaboration have focused on tools such as forums,
which may have limited collaborative efforts (Macdonald, 2002; Majchrzak,
Wagner, & Yates, 2006). Forums reproduce a bulletin board environment where
learners are able to post ideas, and other learners can see and respond to the posts.
This model may limit collaboration because, although each student can contribute to
a bulletin board, the final document may not have been completed in a collaborative
environment. Google Docs allows for online collaboration on a common document.
Changes to the document are tracked and can be accessed without risk of losing
changes. This is significant, because collaborators can freely revise the document
36
without fear of losing anyones thoughts or ideas. Forums, in contrast, do not allow
for manipulation of a common document, and typically prevent users from changing
posts made by others. This lack of flexibility is prohibitive when asking people to
collaborate on a common product.
Rourke and Kanuka (2007) found barriers to online collaboration which
included competitive tendencies when participating in online discussions. In the
authors study, students were encouraged to participate in online discussions, where
critical discourse was supposed to occur. However, students had differing views as
to how to conduct themselves in the online environment. When opposing views
were posted, certain students reacted to this as a personal attack. This problem was
exacerbated by students thinking that participation in online discussion was an
obstacle to getting to the final product. Some students did not view the online
discourse as a valuable means to reaching a common answer. Instead, these students
viewed online postings as a means to get a participation grade. The authors propose
more structure, and allowing time for critical discourse to appear. However, the very
medium of posting to forums may have contributed to the behaviors exhibited by the
students. As mentioned before, students posting to an online bulletin board are not
explicitly working on the same document. The bulletin board is merely a means to
post ideas and opinions, and when posts contradict each other there is no way to
blend the conflicting ideas. Instead of contributing to a collaborative final product,
the students were contributing to a bulletin board, which led to an individual product.
37
Russel and Haney (2000) offer a proposal for limiting students access to
technology, with the hope of improving high-stakes pencil and paper test scores.
The belief is that if students increase the amount of time using paper and pencil to
write, and decrease the amount of time writing on a computer, test scores would go
up. Although this proposal was the first, and the least recommended, the authors cite
school districts where this purposeful reduction of technology was implemented with
success.
Chan (2011) sees the gap between CSCL research and classroom practices
remaining wide. Kreijns, Kirschner, and Jochems (2003) define two pitfalls which
hamper collaboration and knowledge construction in CSCL: taking for granted that
individuals interact simply because the technology allows them to; and neglecting
the social dimension of the desired interaction. The first pitfall highlights that
technology provides the possibility for two or more people to interact with each
other. Without technology, people not located in the same room cannot interact with
each other. With the introduction of technology, these people can interact. In other
words, technology is necessary for people not co-located to interact with each other,
but it is not sufficient for interaction to occur.
The second pitfall deals with CSCL environments which ignore the social
aspects of the task, before being executed. Often, educational tasks emphasize the
learning goal which is expected after a task is accomplished. In a CSCL
environment, the learning goal, although important, also needs to account for the
social aspect. Face-to-face interactions also require this social aspect. Educators
38
would not expect students in a class to accomplish tasks without first getting to know
each other. A CSCL environment must establish a sense of community before
learning tasks can be performed. The authors conclude that in order for CSCL
environments to accomplish their goals these two pitfalls need to be addressed, and
also suggest increasing the amount of interaction by incorporating off-task activities,
which encourage non-formal interaction between group participants.
As mentioned previously, limitations to the implementation of technology in
education are more a function of teachers not changing pedagogical practices than
financial reasons (Cuban, 1993). The next section of this literature review studies
cost-saving opportunities through the replacement of costly software licenses.
Financial Barriers
Trying to compare innovation in public schools with innovation in private
firms assumes that the two are based on a market, with supply and demand.
However, public schools usually have clients who are mandated to attend their
district school, so traditional market pressures affect them to a lesser extent (Pincus,
1974). Pincus asserts that the lack of market-based structures means that public
education is more likely than private firms to adopt cost-raising innovations and less
likely to adopt cost-reducing innovations. This unintuitive assertion is clarified by
the author based on the fact that public education lacks the competitive marketplace
to test the value of innovation. As long as public education officials think that an
innovation is good, and funding sources allow for it, cost-raising innovations
39
like smaller class sizes will be adopted. Exceptions to schools being less likely to
adopt cost-reducing innovations would occur if the money saved could be used for
other purposes.
One example of public education being more likely to adopt a cost-increasing
innovation is using an office productivity suite, such as Microsoft (MS) Office.
Schools purchase MS Office at a discounted price of $50 per license. This is a
drastic discount from the $400 retail price tag usually associated with an off-theshelf purchase of this product, but replacing Microsoft Office with Google Apps
would eliminate the license entirely. However, the move to Google Apps has not
been rapid within HIDOE.
Another example of public education, and specifically HIDOE, using a costincreasing innovation is the use of an at-cost collaboration and email system
Lotus Notes. Lotus Notes is robust cloud computing software, which, much like
Google Apps, provides document collaboration and email. However, HIDOE pays a
licensing fee for teachers and administrators to use Lotus Notes. Replacement of
Lotus Notes with Google Apps is again not widespread.
These examples illustrate what Pincus (1974) would describe as educational
officials thinking that an innovation is good, where the funding sources allow for
an at-cost solution (MS Office and Lotus Notes) to be adopted. There are no
marketplace pressures to question or influence the adoption of a cost-reducing
alternative to MS Office and Lotus Notes. Further, Pincus predicts that schools
40
policy so that if notifications were ignored, users would not be forced to switch.
Despite the notifications and opt-in policy, most affected users claimed ignorance of
the actual switch.
Herrick also notes that each account took seven seconds to migrate from the
old email system to Google Apps. Although this does not seem very long, the
migration of over 25,000 accounts proved to be more time consuming than expected.
In retrospect, CSUs technology department could have reduced the amount of time
per account by changing some techniques, in particular by creating accounts ahead of
time, before the migration occurred.
Herrick also identified that the Google Apps documentation, although
thorough and clear, does not keep up with the rapid upgrades that Google executes.
Typical SaaS systems push out product features through discrete releases. However,
Google has a tendency to keep released products in beta version, which implies an
unfinished product. Customers of Google Apps enjoy the new and innovative tools
through perpetual beta versions of products, but documentation of these upgrades
and releases does not keep up. Upgrades and improvements may alter the workflow
of particular products, while users are not able to resolve issues which may arise.
These examples of the potential costs to education of adopting Google Apps
may be incurred particularly at the beginning of implementation, but the long-term
savings are greater.
Access to technology is another financial barrier which may hinder the
implementation of Google Apps. Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, and Soloway (2003) agree
42
with naysayers of technology education who complain that technology has had very
little impact on improving teaching and learning. However, Norris et al. argue that
basic lack of access to computers is the direct cause of technology not having an
impact on education, and overshadows all other causes.
Another perspective on technology is the idea of equal access versus easy
access. Zhao et al. (2002) argue that equal access occurs where every teacher has
equal opportunity to sign up for a computer lab. Easy access would be when every
child could access a computer at any time of the school day; this could be realized by
a school with the emergence of netbooks costing less than $300. As students gain
easy access to computers, the impact of technology in education may be realized.
This study examines how Google Apps is improving collaboration within
HIDOE. Additionally, it examines factors which prevent the implementation of
Google Apps. This literature review has shed light on how technology can improve
collaboration, and barriers which may prevent the implementation of technology.
43
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of Google
Apps has improved collaborative structures in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools. Constructivist theorists emphasize the importance of learners working to
construct knowledge or advance knowledge through collaborative structures. With
the introduction of Google Apps, students are able to create and share documents
that all students and teachers can view or edit. This technological tool offers
limitless opportunities for collaboration within, as well as beyond, school.
Traditional educational structures limit opportunities for collaboration, and
thus knowledge construction is more the exception than the norm. By showing how
Google Apps improves collaborative structures, teachers, school-level
administrators, and district-level administrators may be able to utilize technological
tools to increase collaborative structures within HIDOE. Increasing collaborative
structures will hopefully benefit students by increasing knowledge advancement.
This chapter describes the studys sampling procedure, population, and
instrumentation, and the procedures for data collection and analysis.
Research Questions
1. How is Google Apps improving collaboration among faculty, students,
and external subject area experts in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools?
44
Research Design
It was considered that examining how Google Apps improves collaborative
structures in HIDOE elementary and middle schools would provide insight as to how
schools use technology to increase knowledge construction. To study this
innovation, qualitative research methods were used. Qualitative research seeks to
understand and answer important questions through the gathering of information.
The qualitative design method of purposeful sampling was used, which involves
utilizing case studies selected because they are examples of the innovation being
studied (Patton, 2002). Through purposeful sampling, formative evaluation can
serve the purpose of improving a specific program or product at a specific point in
time.
This qualitative study began with the selection of schools using Google Apps.
Next, the researcher designed interviews for state-level technology administrators,
school-level administrators, and school-level technology coordinators, based on the
literature in Chapter Two. Then, a questionnaire was designed for teachers using
Google Apps.
45
and five principals were unwilling to participate. Six schools three elementary
schools, two middle schools, and one K-12 school participated in this study. Five
of the six schools were located on the island of Oahu, and one of the schools was
located on the island of Hawaii. The following paragraphs will provide a brief
description of each school.
School A is a public conversion charter school servicing K-12 students.
Google Apps is available for middle and high school students. For the purposes of
this study, only middle school responses were collected and analyzed. All teachers
in the middle school used Google Apps Gmail as their primary school email. There
are approximately 170 students in the middle school, with 23 teachers that teach at
least one middle school course.
School B is a public conversion charter school servicing students in grades 6
through 8, and is located on the island of Hawaii. Google Apps is available to all
students at the school. All teachers at the school use Gmail as their primary school
email. There are 270 students and 23 teachers.
School C is a public school servicing students in grades 6 through 8. Google
Apps is available to all students at the school. All teachers use Lotus Notes as their
primary school email. There are 960 students and 61 teachers.
School D is a public school servicing students in kindergarten through grade
5. Google Apps is available only to students in the student government class and the
gifted and talented class. All teachers have access to Google Apps, but use Lotus
Notes as their primary school email. There are 300 students and 21 teachers.
47
Instrumentation
Two researcher-developed instruments were used in this study. The first
instrument was an interview, comprised of open-ended questions, for state-level
technology administrators, school-level administrators, and school-level technology
48
coordinators. The second instrument was a questionnaire designed for teachers using
Google Apps.
The interview protocol (see Appendix B and Appendix C) was comprised of
open-ended questions, which allowed the researcher to capture the points of view of
respondents without using predetermined categories (Patton, 2002). These questions
were posed to school principals, technology coordinators, and two state-level
technology administrators. The questions were similar, differing only when asking
about replacing MS Office and Lotus Notes with Google Apps. The protocol was
developed for a one-hour period.
The questionnaire was developed and adapted from the literature. The
questions focused on levels of collaboration and barriers to implementing Google
Apps (see Appendix A).
Data Analyses
The data were collected and organized for analysis. The organization
consisted of coding according to common themes that emerged. These themes
included examples of collaboration and barriers to implementing Google Apps.
The two instruments provided multiple reference points for combining the
methods and data, a process referred to as triangulation (Patton, 2002). The
interviews and questionnaires administered to the different role groups were
triangulated to provide a complete view by providing information from multiple
perspectives.
49
There were a total of 174 teachers at the five schools studied. Out of the 174
teachers, 74 surveys were returned to the researcher (42.41% response rate). Out of
the 74 responses, 44 teachers reported using Google Apps with students. All 74
surveys were reported and analyzed with respect to the schools implementation of
Google Apps. Only the 44 responses from teachers actually using Google Apps with
students were reported and analyzed with respect to the classroom.
These 44 teachers reported that students were using Google Apps to solve
problems, present information, produce pictures/artwork, produce graphs/charts,
produce multimedia projects, and produce web pages/sites. Solving problems and
presenting information were the top two most highly reported student classroom uses
of Google Apps. Additionally, these 44 teachers reported that quizzes and
assignments were being created and instruction was being delivered using Google
Apps. Of particular note is the fact that these 44 teachers also reported that students
were using the Internet to research information at twice the frequency with which
they used Google Apps to solve problems or present during class.
Second, the researcher also interviewed principals and technology
coordinators at the schools. School B had a temporary assignment principal, who
had no knowledge of the use of Google Apps at the school. Therefore, an interview
was not conducted with an administrator at this school.
Third, the researcher interviewed two state-level technology administrators.
One technology administrator specialized in information security, and the other
specialized in Internet services.
51
CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS
The purpose of this study was to examine how the implementation of Google
Apps has improved collaborative structures in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools. Constructivist theorists emphasize the importance of learners working to
construct knowledge or advance knowledge through collaborative structures. With
the introduction of Google Apps, students are able to create and share documents
that all students and teachers can view or edit. This technological tool offers
limitless opportunities for collaboration within, as well as beyond school.
Traditional educational structures limit opportunities for collaboration, and
thus knowledge construction is more the exception than the norm. By showing how
Google Apps improves collaborative structures, teachers, school-level
administrators, and district-level administrators may be able to utilize technological
tools to increase collaborative structures within HIDOE. Increasing collaborative
structures will hopefully benefit students by increasing knowledge advancement.
This chapter will report the findings relevant to answering the following research
questions:
1. How is Google Apps improving collaboration among faculty and students
in HIDOE elementary and middle schools?
2. What hinders the implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE elementary
and middle schools?
52
In this chapter, survey data and interview data are reported and analyzed,
organized by research question. First, a brief summary of findings for both research
questions will be presented. Then, reports and analysis of interview data and survey
data will be organized by research question.
Summary of Findings
In response to research question one, the findings showed that a variety of
collaborative products were being created with Google Apps. A second finding was
that Gmail served as a viable alternative to Lotus Notes email. A third finding was
that Google Apps improved collaborative structures by improving work processes,
and collaboration efficiency through the use of common documents. A fourth
finding was that, although Google Apps enhanced the learning environment, there
was no evidence that Google Apps disrupted the learning environment through
significant pedagogical changes.
In response to research question two, the first finding was that there are
several barriers to implementing Google Apps. A second finding was that state-level
technology administrators have implemented administrative innovations to
encourage numerous technical innovations at the school level.
This section provided a brief summary of the findings with respect to the
research questions. The next section will report and analyze data from the interviews
and teacher surveys.
53
switch the teachers to Gmail, ...because it makes it easier all around for teachers to
gain access to their email. A characteristic of Lotus Notes is that it requires specific
software to be loaded onto teacher workstations. Additionally, Lotus Notes IDs and
specific user configurations need to be associated with the users workstation. If a
computer does not have the Lotus Notes software loaded, or does not have the
correct ID and configuration, the user is not able to use the full functionality of his or
her email. In contrast, Gmail does not need specific software, nor does it need
special configurations specific to the workstation. Gmail only requires an Internet
connection and a current web browser. It should be noted that Lotus Notes does
have a web client which, much like Gmail, allows access from any computer with
Internet access and a current web browser. However, the functionality of this web
client is limited, and different from the workstation-based client. The difference in
functionality between the web client and the workstation client tends to discourage
use of the web client. Therefore, this principal opted to switch all adults to Gmail.
The technology coordinator at School E verified the principals claim that all
teachers were using Gmail in place of Lotus Notes. However, this technology
coordinator added that all teachers still needed to have access to a computer for
Lotus Notes databases, the functionality of which which could not be substituted in
Google Apps. These databases house documents such as official HIDOE memos.
Frequency of accessing these databases was lower than the accessing of email.
One of the charter schools in this study, School B, pays the $282 per year fee
to use Lotus Notes. As mentioned previously in the section covering the history of
55
Google Apps use in HIDOE, charter schools were required to pay a fee to use Lotus
Notes. However, like at School E, the teachers at School B use Gmail in place of
Lotus Notes email. The TC at School B cited reasons similar to the principal at
School E for this practice. Also similar to School E, the TC at School B must still
load all teacher computers with Lotus Notes, because of the need to access Lotus
Notes databases.
School A is a charter school that does not pay the fee to have access to Lotus
Notes. School As principal indicated that only they and the office staff had Lotus
Notes accounts, and that teachers never had accounts. The TC at School A clarified
this point by saying that School A was affiliated with a University, which provided
email addresses for the teachers. However, once Google Apps was implemented, the
TC switched the email accounts over to Google Apps Gmail. The implementation of
Google Apps at School A was unique among the schools in the study, because
servers on campus handled the creation and management of Google Apps accounts.
Ordinarily, Google Apps school administrators input user information into the
Google Apps administrator console. At School A, the TC never sees the Google
console. The advantage to this method is that the school has complete control of the
email being sent and received by its users. Additionally, the school can restrict
which domains emails can be sent to or received from. For example, School A limits
middle school students to only being able to email teachers and fellow students. The
TC at School A predicted that the practice of housing servers on campus would soon
56
be discontinued, and gave reasons for the anticipated switch including lower cost,
easier maintenance, and familiarity with the Google Administrators Console.
Table 1 shows a summary of responses from the teacher survey for teacher
Gmail use. Only responses from School A, School B, and School E are included in
these data, because these schools replaced Lotus Notes with Gmail. Responses to
item 10, How often do you use Google Apps to email teachers in your school?
revealed that 90% of respondents use Gmail to communicate with other teachers
Several times a month to Several times a week. Additionally, the lowest
frequency of using Gmail to communicate with other teachers was Several times a
year.
Table 1
Teacher Use of Google Apps Email
% Several
times a month
to several times
a week (4-5 on
1-5 scale)
Min
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Use of Gmail
N (valid)
31
N (missing)
43
31
90
4.83
.531
31
90
4.16
1.003
31
13
1.50
1.306
1=Never
57
Responses to item 11, How often do you use Google Apps email to
communicate with school administration? also revealed that 90% of respondents
use Gmail to communicate with school administrators Several times a month to
Several times a week. This high frequency of teacher use of Gmail suggests that
Gmail is a viable alternative to Lotus Notes. However, this survey did not ask the
same questions to Lotus Notes email users. Comparison between the frequencies of
usage of the two types of email would have provided more insight as to whether or
not Gmail increased or decreased the amount of emails sent to teachers and
administrators.
Item 12, How often do you use Google Apps email to email students
parents? revealed that only 13% of respondents use Gmail to communicate with
parents Several times a month to Several times a week. As mentioned in the
previous paragraph, the lack of information regarding frequency of Lotus Notes
emails sent to parents does not allow for a comparison between the two types of
email providers.
Google Apps also added flexibility to the new protocol of producing common
documents. During an interview with School Cs TC, it was revealed that the first
round of progress reports was done in Google Docs. Using Google Docs, the initial
setup of the progress reports was time consuming. Every student needed to have a
separate document, using the progress reports template. Further, once the individual
student templates were created, teachers would need to open each document and fill
in the necessary information. Although this protocol was more efficient than the
paper method, the TC knew that there had to be a better way.
Google Spreadsheets emerged as a more efficient means of teachers entering
progress report information for students. Google Spreadsheets is a spreadsheet,
forms, and charting application within Google Apps. This TC explained that a
common spreadsheet was created with all students listed in the Y-column and the
necessary progress reports information listed in the corresponding X-columns.
Teachers accessed one spreadsheet, instead of many documents, to enter information
for many students. The completed spreadsheet was then fed using a simple mail
merge into individual student documents, which were sent home to parents. The
protocol using Google Spreadsheets has been sustained as the existing protocol for
progress reports at School C. When asked if this protocol was likely to be sustained
at School C, the TC replied, Oh yeah, I dont think there is a question about that.
School C also utilized Google Docs to expedite different processes at faculty
meetings. Whenever there was a discussion point, a common document was
projected on the screen, and teachers were able to freely contribute their thoughts
60
and feelings to the document. Instead of taking the time to have participants voice
their opinions one by one, participants simultaneously added their contributions to
the common document. The principal at School C felt that the amount of time for
participation was reduced, while the actual participation of teachers was increased.
Another school-wide example of participants contributing to a common
document is the use of Google Forms. Google Forms allows creation of online
surveys, collecting information from participants and organizing the responses into a
spreadsheet. The principal from School A used Google Forms to collect information
on t-shirt sizes, on technology in the home, as tests and quizzes, as feedback
forms on events and meetings, to expedite peer review and rubrics-based evaluation,
etc.
School C also utilized forms with the faculty. The principal at this school
expects the teachers to bring laptops to certain staff meetings where online
collaboration is anticipated. At the end of these meetings, a Google form is used as
an Exit Pass for teachers to provide a post-test reflection and evaluation of the
meeting. The principal really felt that if we dont get them to do [the exit pass]
right then, then they wont do it at all. The spreadsheet produced after submissions
provided school leaders with insight as to where future needs were to be addressed.
Another example of a school-wide collaborative product using Google Apps
is School Ds production of a morning news broadcast. Students throughout the
school participate in the production of the morning broadcast by emailing their
scripts to the TCs students, who are in charge of managing the broadcast. Classes
61
rotate responsibility of performing the broadcast, and Gmail serves as the means to
communicate with the students in charge. Once the scripts are emailed, the
broadcast students use Google Docs and Google Presentations to collaborate on
common documents to accomplish the goal of producing the broadcast. In effect, the
whole school contributes to the broadcast. This TC felt that production of the
morning broadcast became easier after the implementation of Google Apps, because
of the collaboration tools it provides.
Another school-wide collaborative product was the transfer of the master
calendar to Google Calendar at School C and School E. The master calendar is the
schedule of events a school keeps current, so that events like field trips, assemblies,
and meetings do not overlap. Normally, the master calendar is located in the
schools office on a bulletin board. Teachers are expected to plan activities around
the events listed on the calendar, and update the calendar as needed with their own
activities. Principals at School C and School E decided to put the master calendar
into Google Calendar because of the increased access to the calendar it provided, and
control of who can update the calendar. Being online, Google Calendar increased
access to the calendar by allowing teachers to view the calendar at any time. Both
principals explained that lead teachers on campus were allowed to add and update
events on the master calendar. These schools moving their master calendars from
paper and pencil to Google Calendar are an example of technology enhancing an
existing product by providing easier access and manipulation of the product.
62
Table 2
Perceived Benefits Obtained from Google Docs Use in the School
Improving work processes and collaboration
efficiency
% (5-7 on
1-7 scale)
Mode
Mean
Std.
Deviation
74
68
5.12
1.711
74
70
5.07
1.805
1 = No extent
7 = High extent
63
64
Table 3
Perceived Benefits Gained from Google Docs Use in the Classroom
Improving work processes and collaboration
efficiency
N (valid)
44
N (missing)
30
% (5-7 on
1-7 scale)
Mode
Mean
Std.
Deviation
44
82
5.51
1.564
44
80
5.37
1.543
7 = High extent
The limited amount of data gathered about Google Apps use in the classroom
is supplemented by the data gathered from the teacher survey. Table 3 shows a
summary of responses regarding Google Docs improving work processes and
collaboration efficiency in the classroom. Responses that indicated Never on item
1, During class, how often do students work using Google Apps this year?, were
not included in this summary, because these responses do not represent teachers
using Google Apps. Table 3 reveals that 82% of respondents felt that collaborating
on a common document improved work processes to an above-moderate to high
extent in the classroom. Additionally, 80% of respondents felt that collaborating on
a common document helped the classroom increase collaboration efficiency to an
above-moderate to high extent. These data suggest that Google Docs improves
65
Table 4
Perceived Benefits Obtained from Google Docs Use in the School
% (4-5 on
1-5 scale)
Mode
Mean
Std.
Deviation
74
51
3.49
1.156
74
53
3.52
1.214
74
50
3.45
1.202
1= Never
66
The data indicate that a majority of respondents felt that at least several times
a month they contributed to a common document because collaborating on a
common document made their work easier. The data also suggests that adding
information to a common Google Document made the teachers work easier.
they use it. We are using it to collaborate via calendars, long distance
meetings, document production, you name it. We are also leveraging Google
groups to address teacher and student needs. It has really opened up the
classroom as people are collaborating outside of class as well.
The fact that both the principal and the TC at School A mentioned
collaboration beyond the school walls is significant, because this indicates that both
have the necessary knowledge about using collaborative tools to extend their use past
the school campus. However, the data did not reveal specific examples of
communities of learners existing in a knowledge creation community trying solve a
common problem.
Table 5 summarizes student products using Google Apps. Responses that
indicated Never on item 1, During class, how often do students work using
Google Apps this year?, were not included in this summary. The data reveal that
there were a variety of products being created with Google Apps. Students solving
problems and presenting information ranked as the top two uses of Google Apps,
while producing web pages and web sites ranked at the bottom. These data are
supported in Chapter Two, where Johnson and Johnson (1996) found that, 20 years
ago, computer education research was dominated by improving single learner
achievement through the use of computers. As computers started to exist on a
network, which allowed communication between multiple computers, educators
struggled to implement effective and practical use of these networked computers.
69
Table 5
Teacher Technology Use
% Several
times a
month to
several times
a week (4-5
on 1-5 scale)
Mode
Mean
Std.
Deviation
N (valid)
44
N (missing)
30
44
50
3.50
1.171
44
64
3.89
.895
44
34
2.93
1.246
44
36
2.67
1.459
44
1.88
1.814
44
1.78
1.165
44
1.5
1.023
44
1.32
.771
44
14
1.86
1.212
44
30
2.40
1.482
1=Never
70
71
Technological barriers.
General technological barriers are inherent to implementing technology
innovation in the classroom (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). One of these
barriers is that a string of technology steps needs to occur. Google Apps is highly
reliant on the Internet working, and the computers in a classroom being able to
communicate with the Google servers located off-campus. If a computer turns on,
and a web browser opens, but the Internet is not working, tools within Google Apps
will not function. The principal at School A described that when Internet
communication from off-campus stops, entire meetings can come to a screeching
halt no internet, no collaborative document.
Another step in the string of technological steps needed for computers to
function properly is access to somebody who can mediate a solution. All principals
in the study made reference to how much they relied on their TCs for the
implementation of Google Apps. The various protocols and technology standards in
place at the various schools were designed and implemented by the TCs. The
principal at School C went so far as to say, without my TC, I am not sure that
Google Apps would be on our campus.
Table 6 shows that a minority of the respondents felt that they needed more
technical support to keep the computers working. However, the most common
individual response was Agree. This suggests that teachers still need the support
of a technology specialist to implement technology in the classroom.
72
Table 6
Barriers to Implementing Google Apps
Technology Assistance
% (Strongly
agree to Agree
on 1-4 scale)
74
46
1= Strongly Agree
Mode
Mean
Std.
Deviation
2.43
.723
4= Strongly Disagree
74
Apps, the state-level technology administrators maximized the potential for the
multiple tools within Google Apps to be implemented.
Schools that did not switch teachers to Gmail from Lotus Notes created
another barrier to the implementation of Google Apps. The principal at School C
voiced the concern that having two different email platforms was a barrier to
implementation. This principal observed teachers having difficulty checking two
different email addresses. On the surface, this seems like a small barrier to
overcome. However, the TC at School C elaborated on this point by saying:
The implementation of Google Apps is driving a wedge between the faculty.
There is a clear distinction between teachers that are using Google Apps, and
even a rebellion of teachers that do not use Google Apps. The email thing is
getting to some, because emails are being sent to two different addresses. If a
teacher checks one and not the other, the message is never read.
The difficulty of having to check two email addresses is another example of a
break in what Zhao et al. (2002) would refer to as the string of successful technology
steps that need to occur for technology innovation to succeed.
Pedagogical barriers.
Implementing Google Apps in the classroom demands that teachers change
pedagogical practices. What the teacher does in the classroom is crucial to
technological innovations being implemented with fidelity (Henri, 1992). These
pedagogical practices could range from basic student computer management to
valuing collaborative knowledge creation projects. All principals and TCs named
teacher technology proficiency as one of the barriers to implementing Google Apps.
75
However, only two schools had formal training and professional development in the
use of Google Apps.
One of the schools which implemented formal training was School A. The
principal at School A felt that the school-wide technology professional development,
which included Mac OS training, classroom hardware training, and Google Apps,
was primarily driven, by Google [Apps] and our desire to shift the school into our
Cloud. The TC at School A went on further to say that the principal led the way by
providing the professional development time, but that the teachers led the training
topics and actual training. Every Friday, School A has mandatory technology
professional development time. Teachers are able to pick from several technology
topics, ranging from general hardware use to using specific tools in Google Apps.
The teachers use this time not only to learn specific skills, but also to take the
opportunity to lead a training session. Both principal and TC at School A felt that
the weekly technology professional development sessions contributed to the success
of Google Apps and general technology implementation.
The other school that implemented school training was School C. The
principal at School C stated that they hired a Google Trainer to train the teachers on
how to use Google Apps. More specifically, this principal asked the Google Trainer
to assist with training the teachers to use Google Docs to make the progress report
production more efficient. The School C principal felt that this specific training
contributed to the successful use of Google Apps to produce the progress reports.
76
77
Evidence of knowledge creation was not present in the data gathered through
interviews. There was no mention of a community of learners attempting to solve a
common problem, nor was there evidence of an emphasis on building the knowledge
of a learner and knowing the learners place in a knowledge creation community.
Additionally, no evidence was gathered of classrooms where Google Apps
facilitated the promotion of gaming in the classroom. No principals or TCs
mentioned attempts at creating multi-player online gaming environments where
learners were expected to build up status bars, with the hope of motivating students
to learn. The online nature of Google Apps would lend itself to a community of
learners collaborating on quests to accomplish a common goal.
The lack of evidence of these two pedagogical shifts in the classroom is
supported by the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Cuban (1993) argues that,
although teachers attempt to utilize online collaboration tools, traditional
pedagogical practices limit the potential for changing what is happening in the
classroom. This limited potential tends to produce schools that use technology to
enhance the existing pedagogical practices, rather than change the educational
experience for the learner.
Financial barriers.
Norris, Sullivan, Poirot, and Soloway (2003) argue that the low impact of
technology on teaching and learning is highly influenced by the lack of access to
technology. Table 7 summarizes the percentage of respondents who indicated their
78
classrooms had at least one computer per student. The data reveal that a minority of
respondents had at least one computer per student. Norris et al. would argue that one
of the barriers to implementing Google Apps is the challenge of giving students
access to computers, in order to use Google Apps.
Table 7
Students Access to Computers
74
11
1 = No computers
Mode
Mean
Std.
Deviation
4.00
3.81
1.784
79
would yield results of technology enhancing, not changing, the learners experience
in the classroom.
Table 8
Students Access to Computer Labs
% Available
any time (6
on 1-6 scale)
74
66
1 = Not available
Mode
Mean
Std.
Deviation
5.18
1.307
spent on software to money spent on hardware. All participating principals and TCs
stated that Google Apps did not replace Microsoft Office on campus. However,
interviews with TCs revealed that all schools except School A replaced Microsoft
Office with the OpenOffice.org suite or the newer Libre Office suite for students.
OpenOffice.org and Libre Office are locally-installed office suites, which are both
free for the school to use. All TCs using the free suites mentioned cost as the
deciding factor when they made the decision to switch. TC interviews further
revealed that most adults on campus still used Microsoft Office. Reasons for the
difference between students and adults revolved around familiarity and compatibility
with HIDOE standards.
The TC at School B also mentioned that teachers using Google Apps were
closer to discontinuing the use of Libre Office. Compatibility between Libre Office
and Microsoft Office became an issue when the students would not save their
documents in the proper format. Libre Office defaults to saving in its own format,
which is not compatible with Microsoft Office. Teachers would not be able to open
incompatible files on their own computer, which had Microsoft Office. As teachers
become more familiar with documents existing in the cloud, this TC feels that
teachers would eventually lose the need for a desktop office suite.
These findings are supported by innovation research reviewed in Chapter
Two. Pincus (1974) argues that traditional market pressures affect public schools to
a lesser extent. The clients (students) are forced to attend their areas school. The
market pressure of clients leaving the business is not a threat. The lack of market
81
pressures tends to make public schools more likely to adopt cost-raising innovations,
and less likely to adopt cost-reducing innovations. Adoption of innovations is not
forced under the scrutiny of analyzing their financial worth. Instead, if funding
sources allow for a cost-raising innovation that is thought of as good, public
schools will continue to implement it. Schools adoption of free software
alternatives, like OpenOffice.org and Libre Office, is most likely caused by their
intention to use the saved money to buy other equipment or software.
This chapter presented various ways that Google Apps were being used in
HIDOE elementary and middle schools. By examining how schools used Google
Apps, improvements to collaborative structures and barriers to implementation
emerged. Improvements to collaborative structures were mainly focused on
improving work processes and collaboration efficiency. Where Google Apps
affected pedagogical practices, these improvements served to enhance rather than
disrupt practice. Ultimately, no evidence was found that Google Apps improved
collaborative structures for the purpose of increasing knowledge creation.
82
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to examine how the implementation of Google
Apps has improved collaborative structures in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools. Data gathered through teacher surveys and interviews of principals,
technology coordinators and state-level technology administrators were described
and analyzed to articulate the different ways that Google Apps has been
implemented to improve collaboration. Additionally, the data also provided insight
into what obstacles schools have encountered to the implementation of Google Apps.
Chapter Four presented the findings for the following research questions:
1. How is Google Apps improving collaboration among faculty, students,
and external subject area experts in HIDOE elementary and middle
schools?
2. What hinders the implementation of Google Apps in HIDOE elementary
and middle schools?
This chapter will summarize the findings, suggest implications for future
practice and research, discuss the limitations of the study, and conclude the
dissertation.
83
Summary of Findings
In response to research question one, the findings were as follows:
84
86
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study, which were not anticipated in
Chapter One. The first limitation was the number of schools that were unwilling to
participate in the study. Although a documented 84 schools have signed up with
Google Apps through the DOE, only 19 responded to the preliminary survey. Of the
19 schools that responded, only six were willing to participate in the study. Of the
six, only five were actually implementing Google Apps at their schools. The low
participation rate of schools that are potentially using Google Apps may have limited
the comprehensiveness of the data.
Interviewing principals and technology coordinators, although informative,
did not give the same rich data that might have been produced by interviewing the
87
teachers that are actually implementing Google Apps in the classroom. Open-ended
questions posed to individuals struggling with, and having success with, Google
Apps would add to the comprehensiveness of the data.
Since the focus of this study was Google Apps, other technological tools used
for collaboration may have been overlooked. Interviews with principals, state-level
technology administrators, and technology coordinators asked questions centered on
Google Apps. Perhaps future studies should ask more general questions concerning
using technology to collaborate. Other tools may be revealed, which would add to
the richness of the data.
The sampling of the study may also be a limitation. Throughout the study,
the goal of knowledge creation was prevalent throughout. One of the primary
principles of knowledge creation is knowing your place in the knowledge creation
community. From the outset of this study, the researcher could have solicited
participation in online communities discussing and interacting with topics revolving
around the use of Google Apps. Instead of seeking schools that have implemented
Google Apps, the researcher could have solicited individuals that were already using
Google Apps. Gaps in the participation of all teachers within a school would be nonexistent, because individual participants would be selected, rather than groups of
teachers within a school.
88
Conclusion
Public education faces the difficult challenge of outputting more students into
STEM careers. This means that students who normally would not have pursued
careers in the STEM field need to be attracted to the field. One strategy to
accomplish this goal is to involve learners in a knowledge building community a
group of learners improving current ideas to collaborate on a solution to a common
problem (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006). Rather than imitating what scholars in a
profession are doing, knowledge building communities participate with experts to
solve a common problem.
Technology in education has earned the dubious distinction of enhancing
education and not necessarily changing education (Henri, 1992; Cuban, 1993).
Schools have increased spending on technology, but have not changed the learning
environment. Online collaboration tools that utilize networked computers have
contributed to the increase in potential for pedagogical change. Google Apps is an
online collaboration tool, free for schools to use. Unlike other online collaboration
tools, Google Apps allows for simultaneous, real-time collaboration on common
documents. Competitors often tout online collaboration as a feature, but
simultaneous editing and adding to the same document remains unique to Google
Apps (Hall, Nousala, & Vines, 2010).
Research in innovation for the public sector has pointed to many examples
where innovations are occurring (Albury, 2005). In an attempt to make innovation a
89
core characteristic in the public sector, Albury (2005, p. 1) created a framework for
thinking and action, which includes these four major components:
90
CHAPTER SIX
EPILOGUE
The implications for future research presented in the previous chapter
brought forth the idea of studying schools or classrooms where pedagogical practices
have been disrupted with the use of Google Apps. Suggesting a study of something
that might not exist may seem pointless if there are, in fact, no examples of
pedagogical change in schools. However, this researcher is involved with two
examples where Google Apps greatly aided pedagogical change. Personal
involvement with these schools and classrooms prevented this researcher from
studying these examples. A third example was also not included, because it was
only discovered in the last weeks of this researchers completion of the study.
The first example is the case of a 7th grade special education and general
education inclusion math classroom. The teachers of this classroom transformed the
classroom into a massively multiplayer online (MMO) gaming environment. These
teachers recognized that students were struggling with motivation to complete
homework and classroom assignments. As a result, the classroom was transformed
into an MMO game, set in medieval times, called Knowledge Quest (Sheldon, 2011).
In Knowledge Quest, students earn experience points (XP) for fighting
monsters (homework and classwork) and completing quests (presentations to the
class and case studies). Earning XP allows students to move to different reward
levels. Moving to different levels earns students online gold, which can be turned in
for extrinsic rewards like 500 more XP, pencils, bonus points on quizzes, and
91
homework passes. Although moving up levels did not help or hurt students grades
in this school, the number of students who completed the work increased. A peculiar
note to this case is that although playing the game meant completing the work,
students never turned in online gold for bonus points to improve their grade. On the
contrary, an overwhelming majority of students turned in their online gold to
purchase 500 extra XP to move to the next level. The students were more interested
in moving to the next level than improving their grade.
Google Apps provides numerous tools to aid in the implementation of
Knowledge Quest. Students were able to collaborate using Google Docs to complete
quests (preparing presentations and case studies) and the teachers were able to
manage the record-keeping of students earning XP with Google Spreadsheets.
Without Google Apps, collaboration between students would have been difficult, and
the time involved with record-keeping might have led to the demise of implementing
Knowledge Quest.
The second example is a middle school which transformed science
classrooms into problem based learning (PBL) environments. PBL is an
instructional method, based on inquiry, which was developed in an effort to improve
medical school education, because of dissatisfaction with the health care system
(Barrows, 1996). Since then, over 60 universities across the nation have adopted
PBL as the method of instruction for medical schools (Norman & Schmidt, 1992).
The middle school in this case utilizes PBL to increase the number of
students pursuing careers in the health care industry (Howard Hughes Medical
92
Institute, 2007). Students at this school learn through PBL by reading through case
studies, which are stories based on problems, and defining individual learning issues.
The individual learning issues are then researched and shared with the school
community through collaborative online documents. During this process, officials
from the neighboring hospital utilize Google Apps to mentor and provide feedback
to students. Google Apps not only facilitates the collaboration between students at
the school, but also provides the opportunity for experts beyond the school walls to
collaborate with the students.
The third example is a high school that strives to produce creative, ethical
leaders in the STEM fields (Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, 2012). This
school encourages unique partnerships between students and professionals from
around the world. These global partnerships are formed for the sole purpose of
enabling projects that collaboratively create new and innovative products. For
example, biofuels are usually made with corn. However, corn drains the nutrients
from the soil. Grass hybrids are thought of as possible substitutes for corn in biofuel
production, because grass does not have a great impact on soil. This school, in
collaboration with students in China and corporations developing grass hybrids,
tested the viability of using grass hybrids to produce biofuels. This type of
collaboration is unique, because the students have the opportunity to test hypotheses
which have never been tested before.
The geographical spread of the collaborators limits the opportunity for faceto-face meetings. Instead, an online collaboration platform with Google Apps, video
93
conferencing, and chat rooms, allows for the collaborators to communicate and
create common products. The online collaboration platform is crucial for these
partnerships to prosper.
All three examples illustrate how online collaboration tools, like Google
Apps, facilitate collaboration in an educational setting. Without these technological
tools, changing pedagogical practices and improving collaborative structures would
be difficult to accomplish. If public education expects to heed the call of President
Obama for more Americans in STEM careers, public education needs to transform
classrooms into knowledge creation communities. Knowledge creation communities
rely heavily on technology to facilitate the collaboration necessary to communicate
with learners beyond the school campus. This study showed how Google Apps
improved collaborative structures, which may be the foundation for schools to
transform classrooms where knowledge advancement is valued.
94
REFERENCES
Albury, D. (2005). Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money &
Management, 25(1), 51-56.
Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual
model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233.
Barrows, H. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond. In L.
Wilkerson & W.H. Gijselaers (Eds.), New directions for teaching and
learning: Vol. 68. Bringing problem-based learning to higher education:
Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bebell, D., Russell, M., & ODwyer, L. (2004). Measuring teachers technology
uses: Why multiple-measures are more revealing. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 37(1), 4563.
Becker, H. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1999). Internet use by teachers: Conditions of
professional use and teacher-directed student use (Report No. 1). Center for
Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of
California, Irvine.
Brown, J., Collins, S. A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Education Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and
learning 2.0. Educause Review, 43(1), 1632.
Chan, C. (2011). Bridging research and practice: Implementing and sustaining
knowledge building in Hong Kong classrooms. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 147-186.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: how
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College
Record, 95, 185-210.
Damanpour, F. & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance:
The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly,
29(3), 392-409.
95
96
Herrick, D. R. (2009). Google this!: using Google apps for collaboration and
productivity. SIGUCCS 09: Proc. ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference on User
services.
Howard Hughes Medical Institute. (2007). HHMI: Precollege Outreach Initiative for
Biomedical Research Institutions. Retrieved August 5, 2011 from HHMI
website:
http://www.hhmi.org/grants/precollege/profiles/main?event=profile_get&PR
OJID=51006098&listCrumb=null
Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. (2012). About IMSA | Illinois
Mathematics and Science Academy. Retrieved April 23, 2012 from IMSA
website: https://www3.imsa.edu/about
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In
D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications
and technology, 1017-1044. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1998). On-line social interchange, discord and
knowledge construction. Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 57-74
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for
social interaction in computer supported collaborative learning environments:
A review of the research. Computers in Human Behaviour, 19(3), 335353.
Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006). Corporate wiki users: results of a
survey. In Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis
(WikiSym '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 99-104.
DOI=10.1145/1149453.1149472
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1149453.1149472
Macdonald, J. (2003). Assessing online collaborative learning: process and product.
Computers & Education, 40, 377-391.
Nguyen, T. (2008). Technology Tango: School Library Media Specialists and
Technology Coordinators. Paper presented at National Education Computing
Conference. San Antonio, TX.
Norman, G., & Schmidt, H. (1992). The psychological basis of problem-based
learning: a review of the evidence. Academic Medicine, 67(9).
97
Norris, C., Sullivan, T., Poirot, J., & Soloway, E. (2003). No access, no use, no
impact: snapshot surveys of educational technology in K-12. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1527.
Obama, Barack. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2011). Remarks
by the President in State of the Union Address Washington, D.C.: Retrieved
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarkspresident-state-union-address
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pettit J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2011). Mobile 2.0 crossing the border into formal
learning? In Mark J. W. Lee and Catherine McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0
Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching.
Information Science Reference. Hershey & New York. IGI Global, 192-208.
Pfaffman, J. A. (2007). Its time to consider open source software. TechTrends,
51(3), 38-43.
Pincus, J. (1974). Incentives for innovation in the public schools. Review of
Educational Research, 44(1), 113-144
Polenske, K. R. (2004) Competition, collaboration, and cooperation: an uneasy
triangle in networks of firms and regions. Regional Studies, 38, 102943.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning
environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 23, 101111.
Roessner, J. D. (1977). Incentives to innovate in public and private organizations.
Administration & Society, 9(3) 341-365. doi:10.1177/009539977700900304
Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., Tatar, D., Kaput, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2003). Five key
considerations for networking in a handheld-based mathematics classroom. In
N. A. Pateman, B. J. Dougherty & J. T. Zilliox (Eds.), Proceedings of the
2003 Joint Meeting of PME and PMENA (Vol. 4, 71-78). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii.
Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. Computer
Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 105-126.
98
Russell, M., & Haney, W. (2000) Bridging the gap between testing and technology
in schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(19), March 28, 2000.
Published on the WWW at: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n19/.
Saloman, G. (Ed.) (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational
considerations learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational
Perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and
technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences (pp. 97-118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sheldon, L. (2011). The multiplayer classroom: Designing coursework as a game
(1st ed.). Boston, MA: Course Technology Press.
Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative
learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge
handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Stigler, J. W., Gallimore, R., & Hiebert, J. (2000). Using video surveys to compare
classrooms and teaching across cultures: Examples and lessons from the
TIMSS video studies. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 87-100.
doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3502_3
Sultan, N. (2010). Cloud computing for education: A new dawn? International
Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 109-116.
van Aalst, J. (2009). Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction,
and knowledge-creation discourses. International Journal of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning, 4, 259-287.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, C., Brahmakalum, I., Jackson, B., Yoda, T., & Wong, A. (2001). Science &
technology collaboration: Building capacity in developing countries? The
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica.
Wallace, R. M. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the internet.
American Educational Research Journal, 41, 447-488,
doi:10.3102/00028312041002447
99
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organziations. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom
technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3).
100
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Teachers at Hawaii DOE Schools
The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of Google Apps has
improved collaborative structures in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
elementary and middle schools.
The purpose of this survey is to gather information about teacher knowledge about
how Google Apps is improving collaborative structures and what hinders the
implementation of Google Apps.
Google Apps Use (Selected Response)
(1)
(2) Once or (3) Several
Never twice a year times a year
(4) Several
(5) Several
times a month times a week
1. During class, how often do students work using Google Apps this year?
2. During class, how often do students research/find information using the
Internet this year?
3. During class/how often do students use Google Apps to solve problems this
year?
4. During class, how often do student present information to the class using
Google Apps?
5. How often do students produce pictures/artwork using Google Apps?
6. How often do student produce graphs/charts using Google Apps?
7. How often do student produce multimedia projects using Google Apps?
8. How often do students produce web pages/sites using Google Apps?
9. How often do you create a test, quiz or assignment using Google Apps?
10. How often do you use Google Apps to email teachers in your school?
101
11. How often do you use Google Apps email to communicate with school
administration?
12. How often do you use Google Apps email to email students parents?
13. How often do you use Google Apps to deliver instruction to your class?
102
14. To what extent would you say that your collaborating on common Google
documents has helped your SCHOOL to improve work processes?
15. To what extent would you say that your collaborating on common Google
documents has helped your CLASSROOM to improve work processes?
16. To what extent would you say that collaborating on common Google
documents has helped your SCHOOL to increase collaboration efficiency?
17. To what extent would you say that collaborating on common Google
documents has helped your CLASSROOM to increase collaboration
efficiency?
103
(4) Several
(5) Several
times a month times a week
18. How often have you added new information or made a change to a common
Google document because information was of immediate relevance to your
work?
19. How often have you added new information or made a change to a common
Google document because by keeping knowledge updated, your work would
be easier?
20. How often have you added new information or made a change to a common
Google document because by putting in your knowledge, disseminating your
work would be easier?
104
21. How would you respond to this statement: I need more access to the Internet
for my students.
22. How would you respond to this statement: I need more technical support to
keep computers working.
23. How would you respond to this statement: Google Apps is a replacement for
Microsoft Office.
(1) No
computers
(2) Less
than 1
computer
for every 6
students
(3) 1
computer
for every
6 students
(4) 1
computer
for every
5
students
(5) 1
computer
for every
4
students
(6) 1
computer
for every
2
students
(7) 1
computer
for every
student
(8) More
than 1
computer
for every
student
105
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR PRINCIPALS AND TECHNOLOGY
COORDINATORS AT THE SCHOOL
The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of Google Apps has
improved collaborative structures in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
elementary and middle schools.
The purpose of this interview is to gather information about principal and technology
coordinator knowledge about how Google Apps is improving collaborative structures
and what hinders the implementation of Google Apps.
1. Who is using Google Apps?
2. What types of products have been made with Google Apps?
3. How has Google Apps been used to encourage collaboration in your school?
4. What has changed since the implementation of Google Apps?
5. What difficulties have you encountered with the implementation of Google
Apps?
6. How can the implementation of Google Apps be improved?
7. Has Google Apps reduced the amount of money spent on software at your
school?
8. Has Google Apps replaced MS Office?
9. Has Google Apps replaced Lotus Notes on campus?
106
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STATE-LEVEL TECHNOLOGY
ADMINISTRATORS
The purpose of this study is to examine how the implementation of Google Apps has
improved collaborative structures in the Hawaii Department of Education (HIDOE)
elementary and middle schools.
The purpose of this interview is to gather information about state-level technology
coordinator knowledge about how Google Apps is improving collaborative structures
and what hinders the implementation of Google Apps.
1. Who is using Google Apps?
2. What types of products have been made with Google Apps?
3. How has Google Apps been used to encourage collaboration in the state?
4. What has changed since the implementation of Google Apps?
5. What difficulties have you encountered with the implementation of Google
Apps?
6. How can the implementation of Google Apps be improved?
7. Has Google Apps reduced the amount of money spent on software in the
state?
8. What is the cost per seat for Lotus Notes?
9. Why is Google Apps not used in place of Lotus Notes?
107