You are on page 1of 152

The Impact of Training on the Time Required to Implement Technology in the Classroom

Dissertation Submitted to Northcentral University Graduate Faculty of the School of Education in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

by Troy Stevens

Prescott Valley, Arizona November 2013

UMI Number: 3577763

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Di!ss0?t&iori Publishing
UMI 3577763 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. 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, Ml 48106-1346

Abstract Many teachers are using technology to improve student achievement, but only a few are attaining an improvement in student achievement. The purpose of this quantitative study was to identify: (1) how much time teachers spend integrating technology into their classroom, (2) how much time teachers believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integrations, and (3) if training has an impact on the time required to implement technology. Previous research found that training reduces the time required for teachers to integrate technology, but failed to identify the amount of time teachers spend integrating technology and the amount of time saved by attending training. To focus this research on the barrier of time, the participants for this study were required to have access to technology and have received training on integrating technology. One hundred forty two participants in the 2006-2009 Pennsylvania Department of Education grant titled, Classrooms For the Future completed an online survey to provide: (1) the number of minutes spent preparing to integrate technology into their classroom, (2) the amount of minutes believed required to get the maximum effectiveness from their integration of technology, and (3) their level of satisfaction on the training they received. With a p value of 0.000, a statistically significant difference was found between the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and the amount of time teachers think is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integration of technology. This concurs with previous research that time is a barrier to integrating technology. The average teacher spent 55 minutes preparing to integrate technology but believed 131 minutes is required to get the maximum effect from integrating technology. With a p

APPROVAL PAGE The Impact of Training on the Time Required to Implement Technology in t Classroom By Troy Stevens Approved by:

Z // j2 t/
Chair: Marie Kelso, Ph.D. Date

z4J 3 >

Certified by:

School Dean: Cindy K. Guillaume, Ed.D.

Date

Abstract Many teachers are using technology to improve student achievement, but only a few are attaining an improvement in student achievement. The purpose of this quantitative study was to identify: (1) how much time teachers spend integrating technology into their classroom, (2) how much time teachers believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integrations, and (3) if training has an impact on the time required to implement technology. Previous research found that training reduces the time required for teachers to integrate technology, but failed to identify the amount of time teachers spend integrating technology and the amount of time saved by attending training. To focus this research on the barrier of time, the participants for this study were required to have access to technology and have received training on integrating technology. One hundred forty two participants in the 2006-2009 Pennsylvania Department of Education grant titled, Classrooms For the Future completed an online survey to provide: (1) the number of minutes spent preparing to integrate technology into their classroom, (2) the amount of minutes believed required to get the maximum effectiveness from their integration of technology, and (3) their level of satisfaction on the training they received. With a p value of 0.000, a statistically significant difference was found between the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and the amount of time teachers think is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integration of technology. This concurs with previous research that time is a barrier to integrating technology. The average teacher spent 55 minutes preparing to integrate technology but believed 131 minutes is required to get the maximum effect from integrating technology. With a p

value of 0.717, the data revealed no statistically significant correlation between the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and their level of satisfaction with the training they have received. Unlike previous research, training was not found to save time integrating technology. Accordingly, teachers are not committing the time they should to integrate technology. The results highlight a need for future research into what is competing for a teachers time.

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction..............................................................................................................1 Background.......................................................................................................................... 3 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................4 Purpose................................................................................................................................ 5 Theoretical Framework.......................................................................................................7 Research Questions............................................................................................................11 Hypotheses......................................................................................................................... 11 Nature of the Study............................................................................................................12 Significance of the Study.................................................................................................. 13 Definition of Key Terms................................................................................................... 15 Summary............................................................................................................................ 16 Chapter 2: Literature Review.................................................................................................. 18 Educational Technology...................................................................................................20 Are Teachers Using Educational Technology?..............................................................24 Previous Barriers Preventing Teachers from Using Educational Technology............ 27 Do Teachers Have Time to Integrate Technology?........................................................33 What Is the Impact that Training Has on the Amount of Time Required to Integrate Technology?..................................................................................................................... 41 How Is Educational Technology Being Used?...............................................................45 Why Do Educators Need to Integrate Technology into Their Classroom?................. 49 Summary............................................................................................................................ 57 Chapter 3: Research M ethod..................................................................................................59 Research Methods and Design(s)....................................................................................59 Population..........................................................................................................................60 Materials/Instruments.......................................................................................................63 Operational Definition of Variables................................................................................68 Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis..................................................................... 70 Assumptions......................................................................................................................72 Limitations.........................................................................................................................73 Delimitations......................................................................................................................74 Ethical Assurances............................................................................................................ 74 Summary............................................................................................................................ 76 Chapter 4: Findings................................................................................................................. 78 Results................................................................................................................................ 80 Evaluation of Findings......................................................................................................88 Summary............................................................................................................................ 94 Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions...........................................96 Implications.......................................................................................................................98 Recommendations........................................................................................................... 105 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 108

iv

References..............................................................................................................................113 Appendixes............................................................................................................................133 Appendix A: Proposed Survey/Interview Questions................................................... 134 Appendix B: Proposed Survey/Interview Questions Data Analysis........................... 136 Appendix C: Sample email sent to district contacts that were to distribute the survey information to their high school teachers...................................................................... 138 Appendix D: Email sent to high school teachers inviting them to participate.......... 139 Appendix E: Email seeking pilot test participants........................................................140 Appendix F: Second email seeking pilot test participants........................................... 142

List of Tables Table 1. Research Question Two ANOVA T est .................................................................... 84 Table 2. Research Question Two Adequacy o f Training Received ......................................85 Table 3. Research Question Two: The Average Amount o f Time Teachers Spend Preparing to Integrate Technology Separated by the Adequacy o f Training Received ....85 Table 4. Research Question Three ANOVA Test .................................................................. 86 Table 5. Research Question Three Adequacy o f Training Received ...................................87 Table 6. Research Question Three: The Average Amount o f Time Teachers Believe is Required to Integrate Technology to Achieve the Maximum Results Separated by the Adequacy o f Training Received Time believed to be required compared to Adequacy o f Training Received ....................................................................................................................87 Table 7. Demographics o f Participants by Highest Degree Completed ............................ 87 Table 8. Demographics o f Participants by Years o f Experience.........................................88 Table 9. Demographics o f Participants by Subject Taught................................................. 88

List of Figures Figure 1. Diffusion o f Innovation Theory............................................................................. 9 Figure 2. Survey Creation Overview....................................................................................65

vii

1 Chapter 1: Introduction The results from a recent study on the way teachers use computers indicated that a majority of teachers believe that students benefit from the use of educational technology (Franklin, 2007). Computers, interactive devices, online resources, and other forms of instructional technology are helping teachers improve student achievement (Lowther, Inan, Strahl, & Ross, 2008; Project Red, 2010). Teachers have access to technology, 97% have at least one computer in their classroom (Gray & Tice, 2010). In 2003, Stanford University Professor Larry Cuban wrote the book Oversold and Underused, Computers in the Classroom (Cuban, 2003), to bring attention to the facts about how teachers are not using technology to transform education even when they have the technology. School administrators have spent an enormous amount of money on instructional technology (Allen, 2008), but the use of that technology has not kept pace to adequately prepare students to work in new high tech fields or to work in a complex technology rich work environment (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009). The results from a recent study on the way teachers use computers indicated that a majority of teachers believe that students benefit from the use of technology (Franklin, 2007). Brinkerhoff (2006) found the barriers preventing teachers from integrating technology to be: administrative support, experience, personal factors, resources, and training. These barriers, rated as moderate by 2009, included time, tech support, and the availability of enough technology for the students (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009). In 2011, the barriers preventing teachers from integrating technology is time, and that includes, time for professional development, time to experiment with the technology, and time to learn how to effectively use it in the classroom (Howard, 2011).

2 A study in North Carolina found that 52% of teachers do not believe they have enough non-instructional time for collaboration and planning in general (Smith, 2006). Another study from Kansas revealed that 85% of teachers in one school and 65% in another believe they do not have enough non-instructional time (Topliker, 2007). One possible solution to aid teachers with technological implementation is through professional development. When it comes to integrating technology, teachers that received more training through professional development found that the time required to integrate technology was reduced (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Zhao & Bryant, 2006). The purpose of this quantitative study was to identify: (1) how much time teachers spend integrating technology into their classroom, (2) how much time teachers believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integrations, and (3) if training has an impact on the time required to integrate technology. This research may help school administrators better plan non-instructional time and professional development. Another advantage is that this study may assist teachers in seeing the value of spending time in professional development due to saving time later. The first part of this research has two steps. The first step was to identify the amount of time required to integrate technology. The second step was to identify the amount of time teachers believe is required to integrate technology. This information provided the data in order to determine if teachers are committing the time they believe is required to effectively integrate technology. The second part of the research was to quantify the impact of professional development on the amount of time required to integrate technology. If this research finds that participating in professional development saves time later, it could justify the investment of time to attend the training, in exchange for saving time later.

3 Background Suhr, Hernandez, Grimes, and Warschauer (2010) compared students who were part of a one-to-one initiative with equivalent students without frequent access to laptops. The students with frequent access to laptops performed better on written reading tests than the students without access to the computers (Project Red, 2010). A 2010 study that focused on a pilot technology immersion model in high-need middle schools over a threeyear period and found that students with access to laptops all day performed better in math, reading, and science than students that did not have access to laptops all day (Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010). This study examined the impact of technology on student performance on standardized tests. The study included 21 treatment and 21 control middle schools. The treatment middle school students received access to a laptop during school hours that they could also take home, while the control middle school students did not. This research study shows that when integrated effectively, technology can have a positive impact on education (Shapley et al., 2010). Many barriers are preventing teachers from increasing student achievement through the use of technology such as the lack of equipment, the teachers beliefs about technology, and the lack of training in using technology (Lowther et al., 2008). As the amount of training a teachers receives and their experience with technology increases, their attitudes toward technology changes (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Project Red, 2010). Providing training to teachers on the use of technology requires time (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2009). Creating the technology enriched lessons requires time. To learn more about the effect time has on the technology integration, the focus of this research study was on the amount of time it takes teachers to prepare to integrate

4 technology into the classroom. On average, higher performing schools and schools in other countries such as South Korea and Japan allow more time during the work day for teacher training and collaboration (Mehta, 2013). It takes a significant investment of time to integrating technology into the classroom (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2009). Statement of the Problem Based on previous research on the positive impact technology can have on student outcomes, many school administrators have implemented the integration of technology to improve test scores (Lowther et al., 2008). Nevertheless, not all teachers are not using technology (eSchool News, June 2010; Project Red, 2010). Researchers have shown that teachers believe technology has a positive impact on student achievement (Franklin, 2007). Since teachers know technology has a positive impact on education and they are not using technology, there must be barriers preventing them from integrating technology. Barriers that are preventing teachers from integrating technology include lack of professional development, resources, and time (Howard, 2011). Integrating technology requires taking the time to learn the technology and preparing lessons (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2009). The goal of this research study was to expand on the knowledge about the impact time plays as a barrier to the integration of technology. By identifying the amount of time teachers spend integrating technology and the amount of time teachers think is required to integrate technology effectively, adjustments could be made to provide the teachers additional time. Research has shown that better trained teachers require less time to integrate technology (Zhao & Bryant, 2006). The purpose of this research study was to look into the time required to integrate technology, training has been found to

5 impact the amount of time required to integrate technology, so it seems appropriate to identify any impact training may have on the time required to integrate technology. The information identified in this research study can assist administrators in establishing teacher technology training and make better decisions on technology. This research study may also help to justify the investment of time attending professional development on educational technology. Overall, this research study could improve the integration of technology into the classroom. Purpose The purpose of this quantitative research was to identify the amount of time teachers spend integrating technology into their classroom, the amount of time they believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their technology integration, and the impact training has on the time required to integrate technology into their classroom. To focus this research study on the barrier of time and not on the other barriers found by researchers, the population for this research study included teachers that have adequate technology and technical and administrative support. The Pennsylvania Department of Education sponsored a multiyear grant called the Classrooms For the Future (CFF) grant. Grant participants received adequate classroom technology to allow for a transformation of educational practices. The grant included the opportunities for substantial professional development for the teachers and the administrators in the participating buildings. The teachers that participated in the CFF grant are a subset of the target population. Based on a G*Power Analysis, 142 participants were recommended. The data collection method consisted of an Internet based survey. Over a year of searching failed to yield a published data collection survey that meet the needs of this

6 research study. To proceed with this research, the creation of a data collection method was created. The demographic questions and the questions on the adequacy of professional development were based on a 2007 dissertation by Dana Queener. The basis for two of the questions came from a 1997 dissertation by Traci Redish. Due to the addition of new questions, the entire survey instrument was pilot-tested for content and construct validity following the model set forth by Strachota, Schmidt, and Conceicao (2006). The research methods section contains a presentation of a detailed survey with a multi-step validation process. For this quantitative research, the independent variable was the perceived satisfaction of the training they received: Appropriate training/professional development - Do the teachers believe they are adequately trained to implement and use technology in the classroom? Previous research has identified that training helps to reduce the time required to integrate training (Zhao & Bryant, 2006). Since the training needs of each teacher varies (Wei, et al., 2009), a subjective appropriateness is better than evaluating the duration of time spent in professional development. The dependent variables in this study included: Time spent preparing to integrate technology - How many minutes per week does the teacher spend preparing to integrate technology? The time spent preparing to integrate technology includes the time researching the lessons, creating the lessons, and time learning how to use and integrate the technology. Time teachers believe is necessary to maximize their technology integration How many minutes per week does the teacher believe is required to maximize

7 their technology integration? The time teachers believe is necessary to maximize their technology integration includes the time they believe is necessary to research the lessons, creating the lessons, and time learning how to use and integrate the technology. Theoretical Framework There must be a reason why research shows that some teachers are using technology and obtaining positive results, while some teachers are not getting positive results from integrating technology into their classrooms (Shapley, Sheehan, Maloney, & Caranikas-Walker, 2010; eSchool News, June 2010; Project Red, 2010). Most technologies take time before they move from being considered an innovation until they are adopted in the mainstream (Clarke, 2012; White, 2008). Accordingly, as a technology gains momentum throughout the population, it is slowly adopted as some individuals accept change easier than others (Behavior Change Model, 2013). The theoretical framework for this research study was based on the Diffusion of Innovations Theory. The Diffusion of Innovations Theory focuses on the way new technologies and new uses for existing technologies permeate society (Clarke, 2012). The Diffusion of Innovations Theory is one of the oldest social science theories, with research into this theory starting in 1903 by Gabriel Tarde (Behavior Change Mode, 2013). Diffusion of Innovation theory is the most popular theory for studying the integration of technology into education and many times innovation and technology are used interchangeably within this theory (Sahin, 2006). Diffusion represents the sharing of an idea or innovation over time through a social system, and innovation represents any idea, object, or practice that is considered to be new (Diffusion of Innovation Theory, 2013). For the

8 Diffusion of Innovations Theory to be applicable, there must be a perceived need for the technology and matching goals that agree with the need (White, 2008). With the number of school administrators turning to technology to improve student achievement (Lowther et al., 2008), the need for the integration of technology is there. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory may be used to explain the processes and persons involved with instructional technology in K-12 education (White, 2008). This theory originally started with four stages and was later revised to contain five stages of technology innovation: (a) knowledge, having the people understand the technology, (b) persuasion, having the people form a favorable attitude toward the technology, (c) decision, having the people committee to using the technology, (d) Implementation, actually using the technology, and (e) confirmation, having the positive outcomes from the use of the technology (Clarke, 2012). The stages of technology adoption by individuals is also divided into five adopter categories known as: (a) innovators which make up of 2.5% of the population, (b) early adopters which make up of 13.5% of the population, (c) early majority which make up of 34% of the population, (d) late majority which make up of 34% of the population, and (e) laggards which make up of 16% of the population (Diffusion of Innovation Theory, 2013; White, 2008). The five levels of adopters follows a standard-deviation curve (Diffusion of Innovation Theory, 2013) as illustrated in figure 1.

9 Figure 1. Diffusion o f Innovation Theory

Innovators 25%

Early A dapters 13.&4

Early Majority 34%

Late Macxity 34%

Note. Diffusion of Innovation Theory standard-deviation curve (Yoder, 2010).

Innovators are the first that want to try something, early adopters are people who embrace change and enjoy having a leadership role, early majorities are not leaders but they are willing to change, late majorities are the people skeptical of change but they are willing to change after they see the majority of others using a technology, and laggards are skeptical of change and what to keep with tradition (Diffusion of Innovation Theory, 2013; Behavioral Change Models, 2013). The five main factors that impact the adoption of a innovation are: (a) relative advantage (how much better is this innovation over what it replaces/, (b) compatibility (how consistent is the innovation with the needs, values, and experiences of the adopters), (c) complexity (how difficult is the innovation to use), (d) triability (how can the innovation be tested before a commitment must be made to the new innovation), and (e) observability (does the innovation provide measurable results) (Diffusion of Innovation Theory, 2013). One limitation to the diffusion of Innovation

10 theory is that there was no way to account for resources and support (Diffusion of Innovation Theory, 2013). With the research limiting participants to the teachers that were part of the CFF grant, the participants all have the resources so this limitation will not affect this research. Integrating technology into the classroom to enhance education was the key to this research study. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning was built on Paivios dual coding theory (1986), Swellers cognitive load theory (1990), Wittrocks generative theory (1989), and Mayers model of meaningful learning (Mayer & Moreno, n.d.). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning is based on the fact that people learn separately through auditory and visual channels and by combining the two it improves education (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2012). In this respect, students have a better understanding when they can combine the audio and the visual learning together and research testing this theory have proven that there is an increase in student learning with multimedia (Mayer & Moreno, n.d.). The model participants of this research study were teachers that have received training on the integration of technology and desire to integrate technology into their classrooms. To insure the participants in this research study have met these requirements, the teachers selected participated in the CFF grant that provided training for teachers and administrators in districts to better integrate and evaluate the integration of technology. The grant provided teacher laptops, student laptops, LCD projectors, and money to upgrade the building infrastructure to handle the additional technology. The goal of this research study was to study the time required to integrate technology. It takes

11 time to integrate technology, and the time required to integrate technology is a deciding factor preventing some teachers from integrating technology (Howard, 2011). Research Questions Previous researchers have shown that teachers believe that integrating technology into their classroom will have a positive impact on student achievement (Adcock, 2008). For school district administrators to provide the best environment to foster the integration of technology into the classroom they need to understand the barriers. This research study focused on the effect of the barrier of time. Are teachers committing the amount of time they believe is required to integrate technology into the classroom? How much time is required? This quantitative study tried to answer the following research questions: Q l. To what extent, if any, is there a difference in the time teachers spend

preparing to integrate technology and their belief about the amount of time required to maximize their integration of technology? Q2. What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received

have on the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology? Q3 What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received

have on the amount of time a teacher believes is required to integrate technology? Hypotheses Hlo. Teachers are committing the time that they believe is required to prepare to maximize their technology integration. Hla. Teachers are not committing the time that they believe is required to prepare to maximize their technology integration.

12 H2o. There is no statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology based on their perceived satisfaction of the training received. H2a. There is a statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology based on their perceived satisfaction of the training received. H3o. There is no statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to integrate technology based on their perceived satisfaction of the training received. H3a. There is a statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to integrate technology based on their perceived satisfaction of the training received. Nature of the Study The goal behind this quantitative study was to identify the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology into his/her classroom and what, if any, impact the perceived satisfaction with the training received has on the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology. The measurement of this data occurred through the use of an online survey of teachers that have access to adequate classroom technology. Accordingly, adequate classroom technology refers to the access and use of a projection device, computers for the students, Internet access, along with teachers that have received training on using and integrating technology with students. To help ensure the participants met that threshold the participating teachers were from high schools that

13 participated in the Classrooms for the Future Grant, sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The data collection had three variables: the amount of time teachers spend integrating technology into their classroom, the amount of time they believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their technology integration, and the impact training has on the time required to integrate technology. The first step in the data analysis was to calculate a mean of the number of minutes teachers spend preparing to integrate technology into their classroom. The second step was to calculate a mean in the number of minutes the teachers believed is necessary to more effectively integrate technology o their classroom. These findings showed if teachers are spending as much time as they believe is required to integrate technology effectively into their classroom. The next step grouped the responses by the reported perceived satisfaction in the training they received. An ANOVA test revealed if the satisfaction a teacher had with their training had an effect on the amount of time they spend integrating technology. A second ANOVA calculation revealed if the satisfaction a teacher had with their training had an effect on the amount of time they believe is required to integrate technology more effectively. Significance of the Study This research shows that when integrated effectively, technology can have a positive impact on education (Shapley et al., 2010). Educational technology is required to prepare students to be successful in the 21st century (Palozzi & Spradlin, 2006). Educational technology also provides opportunities for new and improved ways for teachers to interact with students (Pynoo, Devolder, Tondeur, Van Braak, Duyck, &

14 Duyck, 2010). Teachers can use educational technology to address the individual learning styles of the students (Singer, 2010). The problem is that teachers are still not using technology (eSchool News, June 2010; Project Red, 2010). A review of literature on the barriers preventing teachers from integrating technology found that time was a key barrier (Howard, 2011). School district administrators are spending lot of money on technology to improve education in order to prepare students for the 21st century (Allen, 2008). Many school districts are not seeing the improvements in student achievement that others are able to obtain (Lowther, Inan, Strahl, & Ross, 2008; Project Red, 2010; Cuban, 2003). A few studies found that teachers that received more professional development require less time to integrate technology (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Zhao & Bryant, 2006). The significance of this study was the identification of the time teachers are spending integrating technology, along with the time teacher believe is required to more effectively integrate technology. Knowing the amount of time required to integrate technology may allow district administrators to adjust planning time to better meet the needs of the teachers and students. When the component of the satisfaction of the professional development is included, that component has the potential to justify professional development as a time and cost savings. The data may provide a numeric justification for teachers to attend professional development which may encourage more teachers to attend professional development. If the data shows that better trained teachers require less planning time to integrate technology, more teachers may choose to attend training so they can integrate technology. The results could lead to an increase in the use of educational technology and a positive improvement in student achievement (Shapley

15 et al., 2010). It could also lead to students being better prepared for the 21st century (Palozzi & Spradlin, 2006), and provide new and improved ways for teachers to interact with students (Pynoo, Devolder, Tondeur, Van Braak, Duyck, & Duyck, 2010). Definition of Key Terms Barriers to the Integration of Technology. The barriers to the integration of technology are classified into two categories, intrinsic which is internal to the teacher and extrinsic which is external to the teacher (Bigimals, 2009). Intrinsic barriers the teachers attitudes, beliefs, and experiences and extrinsic barriers include barriers outside of the teachers control such as having access to technology, the curriculum, policies that allow the teachers to actually use the technology with his or her students, and having the time to integrate technology (Chen, Tan, & Len, 2012). Classrooms for the Future Grant (CFF). The CFF grant was a three-year, $200 million grant offered by the Pennsylvania Department of Education to move high school classrooms into the 21st century (Jobe, 2011). The grant provided Math, Science, Social Studies, and English teachers with a laptop, interactive white board, and projector. The grant allotment provided the high school administrators with money to install a wireless infrastructure and many carts of laptops for the teachers in the grant to share. Teachers who participated in the grant received training in using the technology and in how to use the technology with their students (Sturgeon, 2011). Educationally Effective. For material to be educationally effective the students must be able to understand and process the information presented in a way that enhances their understanding of the material (Plass, Homer, & Hayward, 2009).

Educational/Instructional Technology. Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological process and resources (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008, p. 1). Interactive Whiteboard. An interactive whiteboard is a touch sensitive screen that allows the teacher to manipulate a computer from in front of the classroom plus these devices allow the teacher to write on the board and save the information to recall later (Anonymous, 2009). Student Achievement. Student achievement is determined by a students performance on state assessment tests, some states include graduation rate into the matrix they use to determine student achievement (Atteberry, 2011). Technology Integration. Integrating technology is using any form of technology, like a pencil, in a classroom. Current definitions require the use of more recent technological advances, such as computers, the Internet, iPods, Mp3 players, data collection tools, and many other electronic devices (Mierzejewski, 2010; Amiel & Reeves, 2008). For this research study, the term technology integration was synonymous with effective technology integration. Student engagement is crucial for effective technology integration because engaging students is vital to student achievement (Willingham, 2010; Mierzejewski, 2010). Summary To summarize why this research study was vital, teachers believe that students benefit from the use of educational technology (Franklin, 2007), but they are not using it (eSchool News, June 2010; Project Red, 2010). The use of educational technology can

improve student achievement (Lowther et al., 2008; Project Red, 2010). With the research showing the positives affects educational technology can have on student achievement and since teachers are not integrating technology into their classroom, there must be a barrier preventing teachers from integrating technology. The barriers preventing teachers from integrating technology into their classroom need to be explored so that they can be overcome. There are many barriers preventing the integration of technology (Kotrlik & Redmann, 2009) such as a lack of professional development, lack of resources, and the lack of time (Howard, 2011). Integrating technology requires taking the time to learn the technology and preparing the lessons (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2009). The purpose of this quantitative research was to identify the amount of time teachers spend integrating technology, the amount of time they believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their technology integration, and the impact training had on the time required to integrate technology. The model participants of this research study were teachers that have access to educational technology and have had training on integrating technology. One subset of teachers that meet these ideal requirements were teachers that participated in the CFF grant. The data collection method for this research study was an Internet based survey. The dependent variables were the time spent preparing to integrate technology and the time teachers believed was required to integrate technology. The independent variable for this research study was the perceived satisfaction with the training the teacher received. The theoretical framework for this research study was the Diffusion of Innovations Theory.

18

Chapter 2: Literature Review Experts predicted that technology would improve educations through an increase in student achievement (Chubb, 2012). This prediction has led to the integration of technology into the classroom becoming the most widespread and costly initiative in the history of modem education (Bebell, ODwyer, Russell, & Hoffman, 2007). Long before the current technology, district administrators spent billions of dollars on televisions, VCRs, and laser disc players, yet there is no evidence that technology improved education (Battaglino, Haldeman, & Laurans, 2012). For this reason, educational technology has become an important topic of research (Efe, 2011). Research into how teachers are using technology in the classroom, however, is not new. In 1986, Congress instructed the federal Office of Technology Assessment to compile an assessment about how teachers were using educational technologies (Bebell, ODwyer, Russell & Hoffman, 2007). In the 1990s, the promise of educational technology took the education community by storm and unleashed huge financial investments in technology from public grants and district funds that were intended to provide students with universal access to this technology (Halverson & Smith, 2009; Amiel & Reeves, 2008). In the 1980s, the integration of technology into classrooms was technocentric, because lessons revolved around the technology (Harris, 2005). Originally, educators assumed that any use of technology would improve student achievement (Bebell & ODwyer, 2010). As integrating technology into the classroom evolved, technology was no longer the focus, the technology was just a tool to improve instmction (Mierzejewski, 2010; Weston & Bain, 2010).

19 After providing universal access to educational technology, the focus turned to providing examples of how to integrate educational technology into the classroom in ways that positively change educational outcomes (Halverson & Smith, 2009). The focus of technology-literate educators has become changing the ways in which technology is integrated into the classroom; one prominent change was to move this technology from being the center of attention and to make it just one more tool in the educational process (Mierzejewski, 2010; Weston & Bain, 2010). Some proponents of technology argue that this longstanding focus on technology and related over-the-top claims for its power have hurt the integration of educational technology into the classroom (Jones & Bissel, 2011). For teachers, just knowing that educational technology can help to improve student achievement was sufficient motivation to start integrating this technology into their classrooms; it took the impact of federal and state high-stakes testing and standards-based instruction to motivate teachers to use educational technology (Halverson & Smith, 2009). The use of technology that originated in high-stakes testing is also the movement toward data-driven accountability or decision-making (Halverson, Prichett, & Watson, 2007; Halverson & Smith, 2009). This rise in the use of educational technology has been accompanied by hundreds of studies that examine the educational uses of technology in different settings (Bebell et al., 2007). This literature review begins by identifying the nature of educational technology. The second part of the review highlights literature that describes teachers failure to use educational technology, and it is followed by a review of the barriers that prevent teachers from integrating technology into their practices. After completing these portions

20 of the review, the next section will cover information about the participants that make up the study population; they are a subset of the model population. Since one subset of the target population includes teachers who participated in the Classroom for the Future (CFF) grant, a further section will provide information about the CFF grant. The review then goes on to cover the heart of the research, namely the ways in which time factors into the integration of technology and the impact that training has on the time which is required for teachers to integrate technology. This review covers the ways in which teachers are using educational technology as well as why they need to integrate this technology. It concludes with a summary of these sections. Educational Technology The design and the original intent of a given technology does not make that specific technology educational; rather, how a given technology is used makes that technology educational (Amiel & Reeves, 2008; Jones & Bissell, 2011). The film projector and the Internet did not originally have educational purposes, but they have become vital pieces of educational technology (Amiel & Reeves, 2008). Similarly, the idea that technology will change education is not new. In 1913, for instance, Thomas Edison predicted that the film projector would replace textbooks in schools (Tamin, Bernard, Borokhovski, Abrami, & Schmid, 2011; Mishra, Koeler, & Kereluik, 2009). If a teacher is using an educational technology, it is not mean that his or her use of that technology is necessarily effective. An educational technology is effective if teachers can use that technology to achieve the same student outcomes that the teacher could manage without using that technology. The goal of effective integration of educational technology, however, is met when student achievement with the use of

21 technology surpasses student achievement without it (Mihalca & Miclea, 2007). Educational technology is more than just the technology itself; it encompasses the activities relating to learning with that technology (Masood, 2004). When the use of a technology assists in any part of the educational process, that technology becomes an educational technology (Singh, 2006). The study of educational technology is the study of and the ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving student achievement by creating, using, and managing the appropriate technological processes and resources (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008). One thing on which educators who are for and against the integration of technology agree is that investment in educational technology was led by the promise that educational technology could yield amazing improvements in student achievement (Pullman, 2011). Is educational technology going the way of cable television and the film projector? Educational technology pioneers promised that, by providing cable television for classrooms, teachers would have access to high-quality material and that student achievement would improve considerably. Now, however, few teachers use cable television as a core part of their lessons (Amiel & Reeves, 2008). The federal government, state governments, and local school districts have invested a lot of money into technology (Halverson & Smith, 2009; Amiel & Reeves, 2008). When used correctly, technology can be a positive addition to the classroom (Roden, 2011). Yet research has shown that rates of academic achievement of students over the past 30 years have increased very little (Luo, 2011). Researchers have shown that the effective integration of technology into the classroom has a positive impact on students (Adcock, 2008), but that simply putting a

22 computer in front of a student will do nothing to help improve his or her education (Pullman, 2011). If the use of educational technology is to lead to improvements in student achievement, administrators and teachers need to plan the adoption process around these technologies and prepare the proper environment before any technology becomes an effective piece of students education (Amiel & Reeves, 2008). It is important to restate that educational technologies are tools that teachers can use to improve student achievement, but just because teachers are using technology does not mean that student achievement is improving (Willingham, 2010). The improvement of student achievement can be the result of improving, refining, or changing the design of the learning environment, not necessarily its technologies (Amiel & Reeves, 2008). The technological component of education is not limited to computers, the Internet, iPods, Mp3 players, and data collection tools; there are many items that fit under the large umbrella of educational technology (Mierzejewski, 2010; Amiel & Reeves, 2008). If teachers want to retain the advantages that educational technology provides, they must continue to stay current with changes in this technology as well as its uses (Adcock, 2008; Bebell & ODwyer, 2010). There are four main types of educational technology: data collection, imagery, communication/collaboration, and distance learning (Mierzejewski, 2010). One commonly used example of educational technology is the interactive whiteboard. This technology is sometimes called a Smartboard because Smart Technologies product was one of the earliest and most common versions of interactive whiteboards. Interactive whiteboards help teachers to bring interactivity and collaboration into the classroom with

23 the goal of increasing student engagement and transforming their educations (SMART,
2011 ).

Student engagement is vital to improving student achievement (Willingham, 2010; Havey-Woodall, 2009). One common misconception about educational technology of the past was that any use of technology would help to engage the students and hence improve achievement (Willingham, 2010, Grunwald et al., 2010). The effective integration of technology is only one key to keeping students engaged. The problem is that, after the wow factor wears off, technology that is used ineffectively is no longer engaging (Mierzejewski, 2010). Effective use of educational technology helps students by allowing students to visualize complex ideas and to quickly see the impact of different variables (Mierzejewski, 2010). To integrate educational technology effectively, teachers cannot use technology to teach in the same manner in which they have taught in the past. Just using PowerPoint to replace writing on the chalkboard, for example, does not mean that the integration of PowerPoint technology is effective (Isseks, 2011). One example where teachers have the students use technology daily but are not improving student achievement is when teachers utilize a student response system only to take attendance (Hora & Holden, 2012). The educational model, where technology is a supplement to traditional education, is very common and a big reason why technology integrations are not always leading to positive student achievement (Battaglino, Haldeman, & Laurans, 2012). For technology to be engaging, its use must involve the accomplishment of tasks that were not previously possible (Willingham, 2010). The process of truly integrating technology into the classroom involves more than adding a piece of equipment; it should

24 also involve a substantial changes to the student-teacher relationship and to the social organization of the classroom, as well as many other factors not directly related to the technology itself (Amiel & Reeves, 2008). Are Teachers Using Educational Technology? Research into the uses of technology has shown that technology can significantly assist in improving productivity, entertainment, and communication. In the K-12 environment, however, educational technology has been a bust at improving student achievement (Norris & Soloway, 2012). The United States has invested a lot of time and money into educational technology based on the promises of improved student achievement. However, the technology is being utilized as an add-on for drill and practice instead of being used to drastically change education as expected (Boser, 2013). Over the past 25 years, findings of researchers are consistent. Technology has not caused a great improvement in student achievement, yet studies that look into individual instance of technology integration have found local improvements in student achievement (Edens, 2008). To try to explain this difference, one study of science teachers found that these teachers were reluctant to integrate educational technology extensively into their classroom lessons as well as into their laboratories (Isman, Yaratan, & Camer, 2007). One reason for this reluctance is that many teachers are not proficient in the use of technology, making them unable to utilize educational technology in their classroom (Mundy, Kupczynski, & Kee, 2012). One of the problems with integration, however, is that the individual needs of students are changing. For example, in the 1970s and 80s, diversity was not a common term used in educational circles, but times and students have both changed. Now teachers need to change their teaching styles to meet the needs of a

25 diverse range of learners (Costly, 2012). Of course, diversity is not limited to differences in ethnic background; there are economic factors, immigration patterns, and many other factors that create diversity amongst students. In public schools, on average, there are four students per computer, with teachers and students ready to use that technology, but in a survey of over 1,000 high school teachers, students, and IT staff, only 8% of the teachers fully integrate technology into their classrooms (Moeller & Reitzes, 2011). A majority of researchers have found that, without a doubt, teachers and administrators believe that the integration of this technology has not occurred in ways that maximize the effectiveness of this technology. Multiple researchers have found the rate of technology integration among teachers to be disappointingly low (Bums, 2010). Even teachers that are enthusiastic about the promise of educational technology still do not frequently integrate this technology into their lessons (Isman, Yaratan, & Carter, 2007). One report showed that although 94% of teachers have at least one computer in their classrooms, the actual integration of this technology is disappointing: only 59% of those teachers actually integrate computers into their instruction (Oberland & Talbert-Johnson, 2007). While 76% of teachers say they use technology, only 29% use technology to prepare and plan lessons, 32% to instruct students, and 41% to monitor student progress (Wei, et al., 2009). Despite the fact that 88% of teachers have access to the Internet, only 44% of these teachers actually integrate the Internet into their lessons (Oberland & Talbert-Johnson, 2007). There are multiple reasons why teachers do not integrate educational technology into their lessons. According to a four-year study from the University of Bristol, teachers

26 fear that technology may interrupt book-based or "real" learning by limiting student creativity (Anonymous, 2006). Some teachers believe that they can do a better and more efficient job of educating their students by staying with the traditional teacher lead instruction model instead of integrating technology into their classrooms (Lim & Khine, 2006). Some teachers that have access to technology only permit their students to use this technology after the regular curriculum is taught, making technology into something that occupies only the students time, not a tool for learning (Hew & Brush, 2007). There is a reason for this attitude: teaching students how to use technology increases the amount of content that students need to learn in order to successfully complete a course, thus requiring more time (Vermillion, Young, & Hannafin, 2007). The teacher has control of what goes on in their classroom on a daily bases, so the teachers beliefs and attitudes toward integrating technology have a bigger impact on if they choose to integrate technology than having the equipment and the training to integrate technology (Su, 2009). Only 39% of teachers use educational technology frequently for instructional purposes, as reported in a nationwide survey of classroom teachers (Grunwald et al., 2010). Even if a teacher believes that educational technology will have a positive impact on the achievement of his or her students and uses educational technology in his or her classroom, this belief still does not mean that his or her integration of technology is actually effective. In too many classrooms, the expensive interactive whiteboard is a glorified chalkboard because the teachers either do not know how to use the interactive features or the teachers refuse to use the interactive features (Manzo, 2012). Even in schools with a one-to-one computer initiative, less than 65% of teachers report that they

27 use their laptops to create, provide, or even research their lessons, even three years after the start of the one-to-one initiative (Silvemail & Gritter, 2005). Teachers are using technology for administrative tasks, for work at home, and for drill-and-practice activities, but they are not comfortable using technology in front of their students (Anonymous, 2006). Teachers know that students are more technologysavvy than they are, and this knowledge makes them reluctant to use technology in front of their students (Norrie, 2005). When students use computers, it is clear that most of them know how to use the technology and are comfortable using technology (Anonymous, 2006). Students reported that they are comfortable using computers and the Internet by age 12 (Greenhow, Kim, & Walker, 2009). Research conducted at Sydney Catholic high schools found that, at the end of 7th the seventh grade, students knew more about spreadsheets and databases than the systems core high school teachers (Norrie, 2005). Many teachers do not believe that they have the skills necessary to integrate educational technology into their classrooms (Grunwald et al., 2010). Furthermore, many teachers do not believe that they have the skills to keep students from using technologies for tasks that are unrelated to their assignments (Anonymous, 2006; Fried, 2006). Previous Barriers Preventing Teachers from Using Educational Technology Hew and Bush (2006) identified over 100 barriers to the integration of technology into the classroom. These barriers include the lack of ability to operate a computer, time management, interest, access to adequate technology, and a lack of training. Furthermore, their barriers fall into six categories: (a) lack of resources, which may include time; (b) lack of technology skills and knowledge; (c) institutional barriers; (d)

28 attitudes and beliefs; (e) assessment; and (f) subject culture (Hew & Brush, 2006). The first obstacle identified that is preventing the integration of technology is simply access to that technology (Lowther et al., 2008; Anonymous, 2008; Bebell & ODwyer, 2010; Lin & Lu, 2010). Throughout most of the United States, access is no longer a barrier that prevents teachers from integrating educational technology (Grunwald et al., 2010; Ertmer, 2005). According to the Federal Communications Commission (2010), 97% of schools had Internet connectivity by 2010. When comparing poor and wealthy schools, statistics have revealed that there is basically no difference in levels of access to technology available to the students (Harvey-Woodall, 2009). Just because teachers have access to educational technology, however, does not mean that they are successfully integrating that technology (Grunwald et al., 2010). The next obstacle that prevents teachers from integrating technology is a lack of training (Lowther et al., 2008; Grunwald et al., 2010). Multiple studies from around the world suggest that teachers are requesting additional training in using and integrating educational technology. In Taipei, over 80% of a randomly selected group of teachers had requested more technology integration training (Lin & Lu, 2010). A random study of over 1,000 US educators also found that teachers would like to enjoy more technologyrelated training (Grunwald et al., 2010). But just providing training does not solve the larger problem. Even when teachers participate in educational technology-related professional development, they do not necessarily find that this training meets their needs, as was the case with 81% of teachers in the United States, who had received training that did not meet their needs during the last year (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). Providing the right training can help, however. As teachers receive more training

29 about utilizing and integrating educational technology, their confidence improves and perceived barriers to the integration of this technology begin to disappear (Mierzejewski, 2010). The integration of technology into education is a complex process (Mierzejewski, 2010; Amiel & Reeves, 2008), and this process can cause barriers to integration. For example, teachers are accustomed to being the experts in the classroom, but when it comes to technology, they frequently play the part of the novice (Davies, 2011). Contrary to popular belief, teachers just out of college are no better prepared to integrate educational technology than are their more experienced counterparts (eSchool News, September 2010; Grunwald et al., 2010). One possible explanation for this fact is that teachers with more experience have put in the time to master the wide variety of skills that are required of teachers, in addition to the time involved in mastering the skills needed to integrate technology (Lu & Overbaugh, 2008). Still, other researchers found that a few teachers actually learned tips for integrating technology from the student teachers in their classrooms (Franz & Hopper, 2007). When comparing the differences between teachers under 35 years old and over 55 years old the results change. For example, 64% of the teachers under the age of 35 are very confident in their ability to use technology, compared to 44% for teachers over the age of 55, plus younger teachers do more collaboration with other teachers, and they had their students do more online collaborative work (Purcell et al., 2008). According to many experts, the blame for the mediocrity in teachers and their inability to use twenty-first-century skills lies with the colleges that prepare these future teachers (Bose, 2010). In recent years, colleges that prepare teachers have seen an

30 increase in pressure to improve their training in the integration of educational technology (Vermillion, Young, & Hannafm, 2007). Many colleges educate pre-service teachers in technology use, but these students do not usually receive instruction on ideal ways to integrate educational technology or how to integrate technology while at the same time dealing with the reality of the particular educational technologies that will be available to them in their future classrooms (Franz & Hopper, 2007). College students in all disciplines know how to use the Internet and email, but depending on the college they attend and the individual classes that they take, these students may experience little to no training about commonly-used software in their professions (Ling & Moi, 2007). For example, one problem with pre-service teacher education is that students learn mathematics using educational technology alongside students preparing for other professions; for this reason, the future teachers never learn how to teach mathematics using educational technology (Franz & Hopper, 2007). College admission requirements can force all students to have a computer or to have access to a computer lab outside of class time. Many college classes require that students use discussion boards, course management software, and other online tools outside of regular class time, but in the K-12 setting, the use of these online resources needs to occur during class time (Beaudin & Hadden, 2005). Not every student has both technology and access to the Internet at home and especially true of students from lowincome families. For this reason, teachers must provide adequate class time for students to finish projects that require technology (Greenhow, Kim, & Walker, 2009). In addition, colleges must provide pre-service teachers with the opportunity and the time to develop and explore effective uses of educational technology in K-12 classrooms (Oberland &

31 Talbert-Johnson, 2007). Pre-service teachers need to go beyond basic exposure and proficiency with technology; they need to develop efficient and effective strategies that can help them to teach their students to learn by using technology (Beaudin & Hadden, 2005). Not only do colleges need to demonstrate teachers teaching with technology, they need to educate pre-service teachers on how to design lessons that integrate this technology (Merrill, Custer, Daugherty, Westrick, & Zeng, 2008). While colleges may provide students with training in educational technology, many math teachers who were completing their student teaching were surprised at the lack of technology available for use (Franz & Hopper, 2007). There is more to just integrating technology than traditional topics, students need to be safe on the Internet. When it comes to the pre-service teachers ability to prepare students to safely interact in the digital world of the 21st century, even pre-service teachers that grew up with technology do not enough about cyber-ethics, cyber-safety, and cyber-security to effectively teach it to their future students (Pusey & Sadera, 2012). There is a direct correlation between the value that a teacher places on educational technology and how much time he or she is willing to invest in integrating technology into his or her lessons (Lin & Lu, 2010). Computer-aided instructional programs often recommend the amount of time per week that a student should use that software, but if the teacher does not understand the value of the software, his or her students may not receive the proper amount of time on it (Cheung & Slavin, 2011). Furthermore, teachers that have input in and ownership of the technology integration initiative are more willing to invest their time and energy into technology integration (Park & Ertmer, 2008). Many

32 teachers see the need to integrate technology into their classrooms, but others are still apprehensive about this process (Harvey-Woodall, 2009). An additional factor that influences teachers uses of technology is how easy a given technology is to use. When teachers perceive that a given technology is not easy to use, they are less likely to integrate that technology into their practices (Holden & Rada, 2011; Al-Bataineh, Anderson, Toledo, Wellinski, 2008; Petko, 2011). The ease of use has an effect on a teachers decision to integrate technology, but what he or she believes about his or her computer skills does not influence his or her decision to integrate that technology into their classroom (Holden & Rada, 2011). Researchers have identified a number of other barriers to the integration of technology. Technology support staff complain that teachers refuse to do basic troubleshooting to fix their computer problems; teachers complain that they do not have the training to do these basic support tasks; administrators fear that teachers ask students to perform basic troubleshooting; and all of troubleshooting takes time away from classroom learning (Anderson, 2010). Other barriers include the fact that administrators have not established educational technology integration expectations, so teachers have no idea how their integration of technology will be evaluated (Robertons, 2011). Finally, some teachers still believe that educational technology is not necessary for their lessons to be effective (Grunwald et al., 2010). In general, there is a lack of communication between administrators and teachers. Teachers do not know what exactly administrators would like to see done with educational technology (Rebertson, 2011). The current national curriculum and pedagogy of lecture, along with that of drill-and-practice, was created in the nineteenth

33 century to prepare students to attend Harvard University; pedagogy and curriculum has not been significantly updated to meet the needs of twenty-first-century students and to take advantage of 21st technology (Norris & Soloway, 2012). The converse of these barriers to the integration of technology is enablers to its integration. Some of the best enablers are providing access to educational technology, along with training, the time needed to learn to use technology, and the time needed to create lessons that integrate this technology (Ertermer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006). Do Teachers Have Time to Integrate Technology? It takes time to learn how to use the technology, and it takes time to create lessons that integrate educational technology (Liang, 2006). After the barrier of access to educational technology and basic training, the next most common barrier to the integration is a lack of time (Grunwald et al., 2010). A study in Texas and Arizona of 126 teachers that explored the beliefs, barriers, and perception on the creating of learner centered technology integrations by An and Reigeluth (2011) found that lack of time was the second most common barrier to the integration of technology after access to technology. Alongside the complexity of educational technology, the time constraints that are present in schools constitute significant barriers to the integration of technology (Bull, Thompson, Searson, Garofalo, Park, Young, & Lee, 2008). A study of barriers to the integration of educational technology in Singapore identified many barriers that were external to the teacher (Lim & Khine, 2006). A study conducted by the US Department of Education into the barriers that hamper the integration of technology on the part of teacher candidates claimed that 62% of the teacher candidates reported that time was a

34 barrier to their integration of technology (Educational technology in teacher education programs for initial licensure, 2007). In one study, a majority of teachers communicated that they prefer to use technology, but that they felt it was not worth investing their time to create the lesson, research the sources, learn the software, schedule the computer lab, setup the equipment, and then use class time to show students how to use the software and hardware (Lu & Overbaugh, 2008). Basically, teachers feel that they do not have the time to integrate technology effectively into their classes (Al-Bataineh, Anderson, Toledo, & Wellinski, 2008; Ming, Murugaiah, Wah, Azman, Yean, & Sim, 2010). Unsurprisingly, a study of technology barriers and enablers showed that time is a key barrier to integration and that more experienced teachers reported time, along with confidence and tech support, as a bigger barrier than did less experienced teachers. This difference in the amount of time could be due to the amount of time and effort that had previously been committed by more experienced teachers (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006). Multiple studies from 2001 identified that a lack of time was a significant barrier to the successful integration of educational technology (Hew & Brush, 2007; Lim & Khine, 2006; Ming et al., 2010). Studies between 1994 and 2001 also found that time was a barrier to integration (Teo, 2011). A final time-related factor to integration is time left before teacher retirement. If teachers are close to retirement, many feel that it is not worth investing time to integrate new technologies (Davies, 2011). Simply put, it takes time for teachers to warm up to educational technology (Digital teaching aids make math fun, 2011). One Australian researcher who reviewed five studies between 1995 and 2006 found a total of four concerns that teachers have that affect their integration of

35 educational technology; one of these four was the time required to integrate this technology (Pierce & Ball, ND). The time problem can be broken down into component issues. The first identified barrier was that teachers do not having enough class time to complete technology projects (Chen & Chang, 2006). Furthermore, students with kinetic disabilities or who have trouble moving their extremities often require more time and effort, on the part of both the students and the teacher, to use educational technologies (Tsavli, Fragakis, Kopsidas, Zisiadis, & Vavougios, 2009). In a study by Vrasidas (2010) into how teachers use technology and what barriers they face, found that, out of 531 respondents in the Republic of Cyprus, a majority of teachers did not have time to cover their existing curricula, leaving them little or no time to adopt new technologies. A multi-national study on the barriers to create technology assistive technology collaborative based projects, found that the top barrier to the adoption was finding the time to cover the required curriculum and at the same time include educational technology in the process (Kramer, Walker, & Brill, 2007). The most common barrier to the integration of technology was a lack of class time to integrate the technology (Lim & Khine, 2006). Unlike with traditional lectures for which the teacher sets the pace and displays control, it is difficult for teachers to predict how long it will take students with different technological skills to complete tasks when students are asked to work independently on technology integration projects (Lim & Khine, 2006; Chen & Chang, 2006). It takes time for computers to boot up, and when students and teachers run into technology-related difficulties, it takes time to troubleshoot and fix these problems (Chen & Chang, 2006). Teachers have expressed that their Internet bandwidth is adequate, but an increase would

36 save class time during which students try to use the Internet (Marwan & Sweeney, 2010). Even in advanced physics labs that teaching robotic, lack of classroom time was a barrier to use of technology (Tsavli, Fragakis, Kopsidas, Zisiadism & Vavougios, 2009). Since many teachers are using technology to supplement their traditional lessons, the teachers must prepare their traditional lessons and prepare the supplemental activates that use technology instead of just creating one lesson where the technology is an invisible tool that supports the lesson (Battaglino, Haldeman, & Eleanor, 2012). Few school administrators consider the time that is actually available to students for using technology (Singer, 2010). Classes in which the teacher had the students for less than one continuous hour were less likely to use educational technology than those in which class time extended past one hour (Hew & Brush, 2007). In a recent study, over 63% of teachers reported that a lack of class time was a moderate to large barrier in adopting technologies (Hutchison & Reinking, 2010). Many teachers feel the pressure to devote class time to helping students meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation as well as to normal day-to-day classroom management, and they thus feel that they do not have time for technology (Al-Bataineh, et al., 2008). The top two time-related barriers to integrating technology include fitting the integration of this technology into allotted class periods and the large amount of time that is required to create lessons that integrate this technology (Lim & Khine, 2006; Chen & Chang, 2006). Teachers have expressed that their Internet bandwidth is adequate, but that if they had faster Internet access they might save time preparing to use these technologies (Marwan & Sweeney, 2010). One example of a technology that is commonly integrated into the classroom is geographical information systems (GIS).

37 When teachers try to integrate GIS into the classroom, they need time to learn how to use GIS software; they also need time to teach students how to use the software, as well as time for the students to complete assignments that involve access to the software (Demirci, 2009). Multiple studies that looked into the barriers of integrating GIS software in Turkey and Malaysia found that lack of time was one of the biggest barriers to adoption (Lateh & Muniandy 2011). It is important to note that these time constraints are not limited to teachers; even students report that they do not have enough time to use and learn the GIS software (Demirci, 2009). It can be time consuming for teachers and students to research information on the Internet and then verify the accuracy of this information (Carr-Chellman, 2006). In addition, preparing lessons can take a great deal of time because many textbooks do not yet contain activities that integrate technology; in these cases, the teacher needs to research effective applications of educational technology for each individual lesson (Watson, Boudreau, York, Greiner, and Wynn, 2008). Even using existing online resources requires time for the teacher to find and verify the accuracy of those resources (Perrault, 2009). When teachers share a computer lab, just scheduling adequate time to use the busy workstations can be a barrier to using them (Al-Bataineh, et al., 2008). In most European and Asian countries, actual instruction counts for only half of a teachers work time, allowing for 15 to 20 hours per week to prepare lessons and participate in staff development (Wei, et al., 2009). The average American teacher only has three to five hours of time per week that they can use for lesson planning and professional development (Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, 2009; Wei, et al., 2009). Professional development for teachers on integrating technology is inadequate (Wei, et

38 al., 2009). Given this situation, American teachers must prepare technology lessons on their own time and use their time to learn how to use technology. When using educational technologies like student response systems, creating good questions requires considerably more time and effort than was needed when the teacher did not use such technologies (Ioannou & Artino, 2010). One common request from teachers is for more planning time to be part of their normal workday (Parks & Ertmer, 2008). While there may be policies and standards for the integration of technology that have been established by school administrators and national organizations, teachers must continue to use their planning time to learn and figure out how to implement these technology standards into their individual classrooms (Teo, 2011). Before a teacher can integrate a given technology, the teacher must have the ability to use that technology; gain this ability requires time to learn and practice using the technology (Bose, 2010). Integrating technology requires time for training, time to play with and learn the technology, time to build confidence with the technology, and time to create lessons that employ the technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2009; Lim & Khine, 2006). Having the time to practice with technological tools that they are to integrate is critical to success (Hubbell, 2010). For a teacher to plan just one project, it may take hours to locate photos, scan materials, and preview websites, and the cost of putting in too many hours is burnout, potentially leading that teacher to exit the profession (Hew & Brush, 2007). Furthermore, technology is constantly changing with the next revolutionary invention, so that by the time a teacher learns how to use a technology; it is obsolete (Mishar, Koejler, & Kereluik, 2009). For teachers with very

39 limited time resources, keeping current with educational technologies is necessary but overwhelming (Harris, Mirsha, & Koehler, 2009). One study found that teachers are willing to invest the time to integrate technology into their classrooms (An & Reigeluth, 2011). Other studies disagree with these findings. If district administrators do not allow time for professional development, teachers must choose between attending professional development sessions and spending time with their own families (Carr-Chellman, 2006). Teachers are busy people, and many things compete for their time (Mishra, Koeler, & Kereluik, 2009; Marwin & Sweeney, 2010). Even at the college level, one third of all professors that train teachers to integrate technologies into their practices want more release time during which to participate in professional development (Vermillion, Young, & Hannafin, 2007). One way for administrators to remove this barrier is to compensate teachers for the time they spend attending professional development sessions (Siemens, 2006). A further issue with the time for professional development is that some teachers require more training than others. A study of 21 teachers that participated in one half-day training revealed that 15 of these teachers found the training to be sufficient, while six would have preferred more time for development (Park & Ertmer, 2008). During professional development sessions, teachers need time to experiment with the software and the hardware about which they are learning. Practice time with someone who can answer their questions provides teachers with the opportunity to absorb what they are learning and place it into their pedagogy (Hubbell, 2010). Learning the theory behind a new pedagogy and then learning how to implement that pedagogy effectively takes time (Underwood & Dillon, 2011). To summarize, the top four barriers

40 preventing teachers from integrating technology into the classroom are a lack of time to learn the technology, a lack of class time to use the technology, a lack of access to technology and a lack of training on how to integrate the technology into the classroom (Su, 2009). One of the three strategies for stimulating the integration of technology as identified in research by Lim and Khine (2006) is for administrators to provide more time for professional development. Professional development must be ongoing because programs change and, in some cases, new versions of technology can add new features that may require more training time than previous versions (Edutopia, 2008). A form of professional development occurs through professional sharing. Teachers report that the two biggest barriers to online sharing are a lack of time and a lack of knowledge (Hew & Hara 2007). Assuming that teachers had the time to plan to integrate educational technology and had the time for the professional development that is required for learning the necessary skills to do so, time is still an issue. Despite the fact that 83% of teachers who recently participated in an educational technology integration project admitted that they were inspired, a consensus agreed that they did not believe that they would have enough classroom time to incorporate these activities (Karchmer-Klein, 2007). A further, complicating fear is that after teachers invest their time in development the technology may not be available during the next school year or administrators may change their districts initiatives (Donovan, Hartley, Strudler, 2007). These findings are not restricted to the K-12 environment. Faculty workload is the biggest barrier to universities starting or expanding their online course offerings

(Chen, 2009). When teachers use online discussion boards with their students, the process can be very time consuming; they can easily receive one hundred postings to review every night (Carr-Chellman, 2006). When teachers have limited access to technology and a limited amount of classroom time to use this technology, they are limited in integrating this technology. For example, teachers sometimes prefer to have students do their writing and editing on a computer, but with only seven computers in a class and a short period, their students are still required to make a few revisions on paper before they receive time on the computer to type their final revisions (Karchmer-Klein, 2007). Teachers that want to integrate technology need the time to teach students how to use that technology to do complex tasks, just as they need class time to teach toward high-stakes testing (Hutchison & Reinking, 2010). Even conducting the research that measures the effectiveness of educational technology requires an investment in time (Bebell, ODwyer, Russell & Hoffman, 2007) and engagement with the technology is limited due to time constraints (Amiel & Reeves, 2008). When it comes to deciding whether a teacher believes that it is worth his or her time and effort to integrate technology, it falls to the individual teachers to decide to do so (Schrum & Glasset, 2006). Teachers need to decide for themselves whether it is worth investing their time and effort in order to learn new skills to effectively integrate educational technology (Mishra, Koehler, Kereluik, 2009). What Is the Impact that Training Has on the Amount of Time Required to Integrate Technology? For over 20 years, school district administrators have understood the importance of providing professional development in educational technology (Lu & Overbaugh,

42 2008). These administrators have already invested a large amount of time in providing professional development for their teachers (Ham, 2010). Training teachers to integrate technology is more complicated than the actual use of that technology (Harvey-Woodall, 2009; Mishra, Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009). Combining interactive media with problembased learninga common part of many technology-friendly pedagogies is difficult and requires training and a specific learning capacity (Donnelly, 2009). Even when 62% of teachers say their school does a good job at providing professional development on integrating technology, 85% of the teachers in that survey say they still seek professional development from outside sources (Purcell et al., 2008). The longer that a teacher has been in the profession,-the more important professional development is in helping them to overcome the barrier of time (Ertmer, OttenbreitLeftwich, & York, 2006). Quality professional development helps teachers to develop a better attitude toward educational technology, and teachers with a better attitude toward technology are more likely to invest the time to effectively integrate technology (Holden & Rada, 2011). Providing professional development to teachers and student teachers reduces the amount of time these teachers need to integrate technology, thus creating more efficient use of their time (Berlin & White, 2012). There are too many different technologies for teacher to learn everything about every technology, so teachers need to learn about the broader frameworks of educational technology (Mishra, Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009). Participating in professional development requires time, and teachers also need time to integrate educational technology into their classes (Marino & Beecher, 2010). School administrators often bring technology integration experts into schools in order to present ideas and

43 information to teachers about how to integrate technology, but the problem is that they usually do not include time for the teachers to actually practice what is being discussed (Chen & Chang, 2006). Spending hours in professional development that is worthless to the teachers involved is unfortunately very common (Harvey-Woodall, 2009). Indeed, teachers report that a lack of time for practice during professional development is a common issue (Chen & Chang, 2006). Teachers do not agree about the type of professional development that they would like to receive, but they do agree that the necessary professional development should occur at flexible times so that they can fit the training into their busy schedules (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006). When teachers do have the time for professional development, the professional development usually focuses on basic computer skills and not on the skills and strategies that teachers need to integrate this technology into their practice; put simply, teachers need to spend time learning how to integrate technology (Havey-Woodall, 2009). Spending time learning how to integrate technology is especially true with assistive technology designed to helps students with disabilities. Unless teachers have time for training in how to use this technology, they have to spend even more time just trying to figure out how to use it (Alper & Raharinirina, 2006). To improve the success of the transfer of knowledge and skills for integrating educational technology takes a substantial amount of time; a one-time session is insufficient (Chen & Chang, 2006). Another reason to provide such professional development is because teachers are more likely to use a technology that they believe is easier to use than a technology that they believe to be difficult (Holden & Rada, 2011).

44 After teachers receive training, they have more ideas about how to integrate educational technology and they consequently spend less time trying to figure out how to do so (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Zhao & Bryant, 2006; Lim & Khine, 2006). Just by training teachers on more efficient search techniques, teachers begin to use technology more often because they now spend less time doing simple searchers (Lu & Overbaugh, 2008). If teachers have to figure out how to integrate a piece of technology, it takes more of their time, as compared to following an activity that someone else has created (Guzey & Roehrig, 2009; Lim & Khine, 2006). When professional development covers only the basic aspects of using a technology, it does not have the same impact as curriculum-specific training that includes ideas that are directly related to what the teacher could do with his or her students (Zhao & Bryant, 2006). Professional development needs to provide teachers with specific examples of how to integrate specific educational technologies into their classrooms, and these examples must meet the needs of their students as well as fit within time and access constraints (Harris, Mirsha, & Koehler, 2009). Of course, after receiving high quality training on using educational technology, teachers found that they required less time to integrate that technology into their classes (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Marino & Beecher, 2010; Zhao & Bryant, 2006). In Singapore, three of the four schools surveyed in one study created teams of teachers and provided them with monthly common planning time and monthly professional development in order to overcome the barrier of time that is required for planning lessons (Chen & Chang, 2006).

45

How Is Educational Technology Being Used? Many stakeholders in the area of education are dissatisfied with the current state of education (Harvey-Woodall, 2009). According to researchers, the optimal uses of educational technology are for inquiry, collaboration, and practice, but teachers generally use education technology for presentations, websites, and classroom management tools (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009). When teachers occasionally use technology to support traditional, lecture-based instruction, this instruction retains the novelty of that technology and helps to increase student engagement, but it does not translate into the technology integration that will transform education (Boss, 2010). Teachers are not using technology in the ways that many experts had hopedespecially the original constructivist goals that students would use technology to solve complex problems and create dynamic representations of mathematic and scientific solutions (Halverson & Smith, 2010). Yet Web 2.0 tools like wikis, blogs, and others tools provide the fundamentals of constructivist theory to the classroom and many of them are very cost affect, and many are free (Eldaka, 2012). In most schools, teachers are using educational technology sporadically or integrating this technology weakly (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009). Studies that claim that teachers are using educational technologies may not be correct because the definition of technology use varies (Bebell, ODwyer, 2010). When asking teachers for their self perceptions about the integration of technology in their classrooms, the definition of the integration of technology varies from teacher to teacher (Hutchison & Reinking, 2010). When comparing studies, such variation is vital. One study only required teachers to use a computer once during the year, while others required an average, set percentage of class

46 time every day for technology use (Bebell, ODwyer, 2010). Even studies that measure the effectiveness of software can have different results as a result of time constraints. If students spend more time on one product than they do on another, the one that has included the most time on task may show better results while at the same time being less effective (Singer, 2010). One common example of technology integration is the use of Microsoft PowerPoint. PowerPoint is the most commonly used classroom technology, but it is generally used to retain the same teacher lecture paradigm that was used when teachers were themselves students (Milan, 2008). Just using PowerPoint to replace writing on the chalkboard does not mean that effective integration has occurred (Isseks, 2011). Using PowerPoint to lecture students from notes that they can read on a screen is just as boring as the notes-based lectures of the past (Vermillion, Young, & Hannafin, 2007; Prensky, 2007). Formative assessment is a more promising area of technology use (Halverson, Prichett, & Watson, 2007). Such assessment is leading teachers toward data-driven decision-making (Halverson & Smith, 2010). Data-driven decision-making allows for changes to curricula and teaching methods that can help to meet student needs (Halverson, Prichett, & Watson, 2007). Interestingly, teachers with less experience in the classroom are more likely to use technology for data management than teachers with more classroom experience (Oberland & Talbert-Johnson, 2007). Formative assessment includes the processes and systems that provide teachers with testing data in a timely manner and an easy-to-use format (Halverson, Prichett, & Watson, 2007). One way that local school districts, state departments of education, and federal administrators are using

47 this student data is to identify the schools and teachers that are not doing an adequate job of teaching basic skills in the core areas of math and reading (Hess, 2011). In the area of assessments, technology allows for more options (Halverson, Prichett, & Watson, 2007). There is the traditional summative assessment like the end of chapter or end of course test, and there a formative assessment that is given more frequently to see if students are understanding what is being taught, so the teacher can adjust instruction to meet the needs of the students (Coffey, N.D.). One advantage that formative assessment has over summative assessment is that the former allows for changes to instruction prior to the latter (Halverson, Prichett, & Watson, 2007). Educational technology is transforming education in ways that are contrary to the traditional educational goals that have been set by technology integration experts (Halverson & Smith, 2010). In schools, technology tends to be used as a guide that leads the students through their lessons, and such a structure minimizes the active participation of students (Halverson & Smith, 2010). Furthermore, this structure follows the basic educational model that has been used for the last 100 years, within which a centralized, one-size-fits-all model of education encourages all teachers to teach the same academic standards by using the same standardized methods (Hess, 2011). The original goals of educational technology experts involved putting education into the hands of the students and making students responsible for their own educations (Halverson & Smith, 2010). Educational technology used in the form of digital learning tools has created many new possibilities for learning; students can now receive education from multiple sources (Hess, 2011). Digital learning has further changed the traditional educational system by allowing for the creation of virtual charter schools (Halverson & Smith, 2010).

48 In 2007, one student out of 50 was being educated completely or partially by a virtual school; by 2011, about 40 states will have approved or be operating online schools (Glass & Weiner, 2011). Virtual schools create a virtual world for student interactions using technology that is similar to that used in fantasy sports, and virtual education can learn from the world of fantasy sports how to improve student engagement (Halverson & Smith, 2010). At least one professor has begun to hold classes fully within a virtual world, within which students use realistic avatars to meet online in a virtual 3D space in order to conduct their class (Foster, 2007). Even traditional public education has experienced an increase in the use of distance, virtual, or online learning (Halverson & Smith, 2010). Online learning has become a typical part of the educational experience for K-12 students in the United States (Battaglino, Haldeman, & Laurans, 2012). Distance education provides students in poor schools with the opportunity to take classes that are taught by the best teachers from wealthier schools (Pullmann, 2011). About 30% of all high school students had taken at least one virtual course by 2011 (Glass & Weiner, 2011). In addition, students are using or have used distance learning, in rural schools, as evidenced by 12% of the students in 85% of the schools surveyed (Hannum, Irvin, Banks, & Farmer, 2009). The most common use of virtual classes in public education is for credit recovery. This process gives students that have failed a course the chance to complete that course online, thus allowing them to graduate with their classes (Glass & Weiner, 2011). Among rural school districts in one study, administrators in 81% of the high schools surveyed believed that distance learning will allow them to provide the diverse set of courses that their students need in order to compete in the twenty-first century (Hannum, et al, 2009).

49 Schools are using online classes to enhance student learning because they are effective. When comparing face-to-face learning with online learning, students in the online classes and students in classes that were a blend of online and face-to-face, showed an improvement in student achievement compared to students in the traditional face-to-face class in a meta-analysis of 50 studies, but not all studies showed an improvement, putting the key factor for success on the teacher (Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, & Jones,
2010 ).

As technology creates room for a diversity of educational opportunities, however, distance education makes accountability more difficult because classes can be taught from anywhere by teachers that are not actual employees of the school (Hess, 2011). Another concern that has been raised about online schools is that the driving force behind virtual education within certain institutions is economic benefit and not educational quality (Glass & Weiner, 2011). Still, school administrators can use distance education to provide students with the opportunity to take classes that would not be economically feasible without the use of such technology (Pullmann, 2011). One study where, students chose if they wanted a blended course or a completely online course, the students that choose the online course, did better (Means, et al. 2010). Why Do Educators Need to Integrate Technology into Their Classroom? Students today were bom into a different world, filled with digitalism where working with information has changed for both work and at home. In this respect, teachers need to integrate technology and utilize these tools in their classrooms (Kolikant, 2010). Research suggests that educational technology is the most effective way to improve student achievement (Havey-Woodall, 2009). Since technology is intrinsically

50 motivating and customizable, it is the perfect tool to enhance education, it allows the teacher to identify both a students strengths and weaknesses allowing the teacher to customize instruction to the individual needs of the student (Moeller & Reitzes, 2011). When used effectively, technology allows teachers to improve student achievement within a shorter period of time than it takes to do so without using technology (Rashid & Elahi, 2012). Educational technology provides the support that is needed to bring meaning to many subjects and it allows students to explore their subjects better (Gregoire & Targia, 2006). More generally, educational technology is necessary for preparing students to be successful at finding a job and successful at communicating in the twentyfirst century (Palozzi & Spradlin, 2006). Educational technology provides new and improved ways for teachers to interact with their students (Pynoo, Devolder, Tondeur, Van Braak, Duyck, & Duyck, 2010). Teachers can use educational technology to address the individual learning styles of their students (Singer, 2010), and there are many learning styles. With the increase in diversity among students, such individualized instruction is even more important. Teachers can implement new strategies and help students to collaborate by using educational technology (Harvey-Woodall, 2009). Educational technology can provide students with the assistance on their homework that some parents cannot provide (Blom, 2012). In general, educational technology offers many advantages to education by providing for flexible, personalized instruction, and it provides more opportunities to students and teachers than have been previous possible (Pullmann, 2012). Technology allows teachers to identify the individual needs of their students (Harvey-Woodall, 2009).

51 That is to say, educational technology allows the educational process to move from being teacher-centered to being student-centered (Efe, 2011). When used effectively, educational technology allows students to learn more than when teachers do not use educational technology (Jwayyed, et al., 2011; Liang, 2006). One way is that technology can provide instant feedback, and following behavioral theory, timely feedback contributes to student achievement (Lippincott, Matulich, & Squires, 2006). Two samples from a research study on the integration of technology into the social studies classroom found a 34.5% and a 38.4% improvement on the test score compared to students not using technology (Goodin, 2012). As stated in the outset, there is evidence that when a teacher uses educational technology, there is a corresponding improvement in student achievement across almost all subjects (Gomez Martinez, 2010), but the mere presence of technology in the classroom does not automatically mean that students will learn more efficiently (Willingham, 2010, Pullmann, 2011). How the teacher uses that technology is key. There are contradictory results in research about the impact that technology has on student achievement because few studies go into detail about how technologies are being used (Bebell, ODwyer, Russell & Hoffman, 2007). When students are asked about what they think of a given educational technology, they may state that the technology is really cool, but when they are asked about a subject in which that technology is used, the same students may not think that the subject is cool. Since the way the teacher uses the technology is important, educational technology alone does not improve instruction (Willingham, 2010). A review of 657 unique studies found that two-thirds of these studies located improvements in student achievement in classes that integrated educational technology when compared to classes that did not (Jwayyed,

52 Stiffer, Wilber, Southern, Weigand, Bare, & Gerson, 2011). Is this improvement because students of the 21st only understand the fast-paced digital world, or is it because they are not engaged by traditional classroom lectures (McCoog, 2008)? Active engagement by students is an essential part of the learning process according to cognitive theory, so technology that engages the learner can improve student achievement (Lippincott, Matulich, & Squires, 2006). Technology is constantly changing, Moores law which has been true for decades states that the power of technology will double every two years (Eldaka, 2012). The rapid change in technology can make keeping current with technology difficult, but it provides more opportunities to learn and utilize technology in educationally affective ways (Technology in Education, 2011). Some researchers understand technology as autonomous; they believe that technology promotes itself in an ongoing cycle, thus promoting continual improvements in the efficiency of other technologies (Amiel & Reeves, 2008). Students today are digital natives (Gomez Martinez, 2010), while most of their teachers are digital immigrants (Gomez Martinez, 2010; Hubbell, 2010). The technology to which students now have access was not available when most of todays teachers were students (Hubbell, 2010). Twenty years ago, the Internet and email were not available to everyone like they are today (Milan, 2008). Because digital natives have grown up in a technology-driven culture, many people believe that these students have the skills and interests that require a significant change in their education (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). In the 21st century, information is at your fingertips. The need to memorize this information does not have the importance that it once did and has transformed the skills

53 that are needed in the twenty-first century away from memorization to the ability to find information and know how to use it (Lew, 2010). Teaching has to change because the teacher no longer needs to teach students to memorize something to repeat for a test (Eldakak, 2012). Knowledge is now easily accessible at any time and in any place; instead of information scarcity, the problem is sifting through all of the knowledge that is available (Chambers, 2007). Prior the recent abundance of technology that creates access to the wealth of knowledge that is available on the Internet, books were the main sources of knowledge (Milan, 2008). Accordingly, education has become more than just a transfer of knowledge; it involves preparing students for their futures in a world in which these technologies are continually changing (Prensky, 2007). Students can build their own meaning to their schoolwork which can help them transfer the knowledge to the real world (Eldakak, 2012). Put simply, there is an abundance of technology available to students. One study that researched student use of the Internet found that while 94% of students use the Internet, 63.9% use it from their cell phones and 52% students use the Internet at least once a day (Greenhow, Kim, & Walker, 2009). Given this near total access to information, students need to obtain higher order thinking skills in order compete in the 21st Century (Blom, 2012). Most colleges now offer online courses and degree programs online. Given this fact as well as that many jobs now require post-secondary education, students need to be proficient with different technologies. It is important to remember that college graduates earn much more than their counterparts without college degrees. In short, students need technological skills (Chen, 2009).

54 An online course is a course in which students are separated from their teacher and to which they connect by using a computer (Liu, 2005). To prepare students to take future online classes, Michigan lawmakers require all students to take at least one online course (Palozzi & Spradlin, 2006). For people to keep their skills current, they need to continue to learn after their graduation; some of this future training must take place online (Watson, Boudreau, York, Greiner, & Wynn, 2008). The required skill set required for productive citizens in the world of today has changed; people now need more developed problem solving, collaborative, and teamwork skills (Chambers, 2007). One of the big advantages to online learning is that it removes barriers of time and place. Students do not need to be at a set location at a set time; instead, they can work the course into their own schedules (Spector, Merrill, Merrienboer, & Driscoll, 2008). Often just displaying a newspaper on a screen for students to read makes it more current and exciting and this change is accompanied by potential cost savings and has lead some schools to start to replacing textbooks with e-readers and laptops (Kinchen, 2012). A study by Scholastic found that one-third of all students between the ages of nine and seventeen would read more books for fun if they had an e-reader (Ash, 2010). Providing struggling readers with e-readers, students that have struggled with reading for years have been able to become excited about reading and catch up to their peers (Kinchen, 2012). E-readers allow students to read books with which they do not wish to be seen (Barack, 2011). Furthermore, educational technology can assist struggling readers by speaking the difficult words (Kinchen, 2012). This ability can help the student learn how to pronounce the words and to reduce frustration. Some e-readers can actually read text out loud to students and, for the visually impaired, they can enable changes in

55 the size of the texts font, thus providing all students with opportunities to practice their reading anytime and anywhere (Ash, 2010; Kinchen, 2012). Not all studies agree with this claim, however. A possible cause of this disagreement is that the measure of effectiveness of educational technologies is often based on state-mandated achievement tests, which really only measure how well such integration is aligned with state standards (Bebell, ODwyer, Russell & Hoffman, 2007). For English as a Second Language (ESL) learner, the Internet provides an almost limitless quantity of quality resources that can help to meet their needs and preferences (Gomez Martinez, 2010). For students with disabilities such as autism, ipads are helping to motivate, improve fine motor skills, and provide the practice they need (Rafael, 2012). Again, however, the most common barrier that prevents teachers from using resources on the Internet is time (Perrault, 2009). The use of educational technology can significantly improve students understanding of complex ideas. For example, science is a complex and abstract subject but with the use of educational technology, teachers can transform this complexity into something simpler (Isman, Yaratan, & Caner, 2007). Educational technology can assist in making complex topics easier to understand. By using cognitive scaffolding, technical scaffolding, and affective scaffolding, technology allows the teacher to model ideas, objects, and provide reassurance for the students (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012). When mathematics students learn in technology-rich classrooms that do not limit them to the use of paper and pencil, they can interact with complex, real world problems (Milan, 2008). Algebra students that received more instructional time that integrated graphing calculators into their lessons performed better on standardized tests than students who received less instructional time with these

56 calculators (Heller, Curtis, Jaffe, & Verboncoeur, 2005). After training teachers on the integration of technology into teaching engineering, researchers found that any student with the desire could be successful in an engineering class, which was contrary to previous belief that successful engineering students had to be more academically-inclined than average students (Merrill, Custer, Daugherty, Westrick, & Zeng, 2008). Teachers agree that, by using technology to assist in the teaching of math, students can work at their own paces while at the same time freeing up the teachers time to work with students that need extra help from the teacher (Meyer, 2011). By allowing students to work at their own pace, the seat time required to complete a course is no longer the measure of completing a course, the students ability to master the subject being taught determines if and when the student completes the course, as in Florida, students at virtual schools must pass the state assessment test for the course, to earn credit for the course (Chubb, 2012). Educational technology can help teachers with the limited amount of time that teachers have along with the amount of curriculum that they need to cover. Since teachers can use educational technology to make complex subjects easier to learn, they can teach the same material in less time, thus allowing more time for other topics (Perrault, 2007). By using integrated learning systems, teachers can actually save time and effort (Panigrahi, 2011). In one case study, teachers in a school that had increased common planning time actually required less time overall to integrate technology as compared to teachers in schools where teachers work independently (Lim & Khine, 2006). Simply put, teachers do not have the time to invest to learn how to use the educational technologies that can actually save them time in the end (Perrault, 2007).

57 Summary What makes a technology an educational technology, is when it is used in a way that allows the teacher to do something that improves student achievement in ways that is not possible without the use of that technology (Mihalca & Miclea, 2007). Not all uses of technology improve student achievement or engagement (Willingham, 2010, Grunwald et al., 2010). Integrating educational technology is the most effective way for teachers to improve student achievement (Havey-Woodall, 2009. Teachers are using technology in the classroom for presentations, to replace writing on the chalkboard (Milan, 2008), for virtual learning (Glass & Weiner, 2011; Halverson & Smith, 2010), and for data-driven decision-making (Halverson, Prichett, & Watson, 2007). Even teachers who believe that technology will improve their students achievement do not integrate technology frequently (Isman, Yaratan, & Carter, 2007). Teachers do not believe that they have the skills to properly integrate technology into their classrooms (Grunwald, et al., 2010). A survey of 2,462 Advanced Placement and National Writing Project teachers found that 92% of teachers believe the Internet has had a major impact on their ability to access resources and materials for their teaching, 80% of the teachers get email alerts and weekly updates to keep them current in their field, 57% say it allows them to better interact with students, yet 42% believe their students know more about using the technology than they do (Purcell et al., 2013). There are many barriers to the integration of educational technology. Hew and Bush (2006) identified over 100 such barriers that prevent teachers from integrating technology, many of which include a lack of time. It takes time for support staff to fix computer, time to learn how to use the technology and time to plan activities that

58 effectively integrate technology. In addition, it takes a lot of classroom time to integrate technology in ways that improve student achievement. Students need to wait for the computers to start up, and the teacher needs time to trouble shoot problems that come up. All of these tasks takes time away from the subjects being taught (Chen & Chang, 2006). One variable that can help teachers to overcome the barrier of time is professional development. Professional development does take time, but the more time that teachers spend in professional development, the less time is required for them to integrate technology (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006). Quality professional development helps teachers to develop a better attitude toward technology, and this attitude helps teacher to justify investing their time into this integration (Holden & Rada, 2011). Professional development has to focus on how to integrate the technology (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Zhao & Bryant, 2006; Lim & Khine, 2006).

59 Chapter 3: Research Method Research Methods and Design(s) The purpose of this quantitative research was to expand on the research currently established in regards to the barriers preventing teachers from integrating technology in the classroom. The specific focus of this study was on the time required to prepare to use technology in the classroom, the time teachers believe they would need to better integrate technology, and the impact training had on the time needed to integrate technology. Some of the factors that justified a quantitative research method was that the research points to a model where teachers need more time and that training helps reduce the amount of time they need. The purpose of this research study was to provide numeric data that will either agree or disagree with the projected hypotheses. Unlike many qualitative studies that use research to find the cause, the purpose of this research study was to expand the knowledge about the previously identified barrier to the integration of technology, specifically time, thus making quantitative research an appropriate method for this research study (Neill, 2007). Since the three key variables in this research study are numeric and the variables are objective and not subjective, a quantitative research method was justified. The data collection method consisted of an Internet based survey to learn the impact about the time teachers spend to integrate technology, the amount of time they believe was required to maximize their technology integration, and the perceived satisfaction of the training they have received. The Internet based survey consisted of three sections. The first section includes information about teacher participation in the CFF grant program and questions ensuring that the teachers have access to the technology. The second section contained questions directly related to the

60 research questions and hypotheses. The third section contained general demographic information such subject taught, years of experience, and education. This demographic information allowed the researcher and others that may use this research study to have more information about the participants and help identify any bias and insure relevance (Chandler, 2011). The purpose of the data collection method was to ensure accurate and credible responses in order to gain insight into the research study in regards to the barrier of time and technology use in the classroom. It is proposed that this research study has added to the existing body of knowledge in regards to the use of technology in the classroom and provides possible recommendations for the improvement. Population The population for this study was teachers that have adequate technology and have received training on integrating technology. The Pennsylvania Department of Education sponsored a multiyear grant called the Classrooms For the Future (CFF) grant. Grant participants received adequate classroom technology to allow for a transformation of educational practices. The grant included the opportunities for substantial professional development. The teachers that participated in the CFF grant were a subset of the target population. This research study consisted of three research questions. Research question one compared the number of minutes teachers spend preparing to integrate technology to the number of minutes they think is required to get the maximum effect from their integration of technology. Based on a G*Power analysis, 142 participants were recommended for question one with an effect size of 0.25 and a Power level of 0.80. Research question two compared the number of minutes a teacher spends preparing to

61 integrate technology compared with the teachers perceived satisfaction with the training received based on five predictors. Research question three compared the number of minutes a teacher believes is required to get the maximum effect from their integration of technology compared with the teachers perceived satisfaction with the training received, and was also based on five predictors. In this respect, research questions two and three required a different formula for calculating the G*Power Analysis. Based on a G*Power Analysis with an effective size of 0.30, Power level of 0.80, and five predictors, 142 participants were recommended for questions two and three. In order to encourage teachers to participate in the survey, there was a random drawing for seven, $10 gift cards from a mix of retail stores such as Amazon and Wal-Mart. After the survey was completed, a code appeared with instructions so that the participants could email that code in order to enter the drawing. After separating the survey data collection and the identifiable information about the respondent, the responses were more confidential. The teachers received an email containing an overview of the research with a link to the survey. The goal was a four-week period from the initial request for participants and the end of the data collection. To protect the anonymity of the participants, the online data collection survey did not collect personal identifiable information such as IP address, username, email address, or any browser tracking information. At all times, participants could have opted out of completing the survey. When the participants chose to not complete the survey, the results from the partially completed surveys were not counted in the results. The first two questions in section two of the survey asked about the teachers participation in the CFF grant and if they still have access to the equipment. If they

62 answered no to either question, their results were not included in this research study. A mean was calculated from the number of minutes teachers spend preparing to integrate technology. There was a mean calculated from the number of minutes teachers believe is required to maximize their technology integration. A /-test helped to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the two means. If the probability calculated by the /-test is below the significance level (p=0.05) then the difference between the two means is statically significant. Thus, teachers are not committing the time they believe is required to maximize their technology integration. An oneway ANOVA test comparing the time teachers spent preparing to integrate technology with the teachers level of satisfaction with the training they received was conducted. The goal of this oneway ANOVA test was to help identify if there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers spent integrating technology based on the five levels of their perceived satisfaction of the training received. The five levels of satisfaction with the training they received are (a) strongly agree, (b) agree, (c) neither agree nor disagree, (d) disagree, and (e) strongly disagree. A second oneway ANOVA test was utilized in order to identify if there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers believe should be spent preparing to integrate technology to get the maximum benefit based on the five levels of their perceived satisfaction of the training they received. The goal of this second Oneway ANOVA test was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers believed is required to maximize their technology integration based on the five levels of their perceived satisfaction of the training received. The demographic information was collected to help describe the participants in the research. In this respect, the survey

63 instrument required tests for reliability and validity, as described in the measurement section. Materials/Instruments The data collection occurred with the utilization of an Internet based survey tool. Over a year of searching failed to yield a published data collection survey that meet the needs of this research study. In order to aid with the validation and maintain the construct validity of the survey instrument, questions were presented in the original form word for word from two previously proven valid and reliable surveys by previous dissertations. To achieve face validity a group of 10 experts in research and/or instruction reviewed the survey instrument for appearance, clarity, and appropriateness. To help ensure the survey is not biased the directions and the overall appearance of the survey needed to be evaluated. All of the questions in this survey instrument asked for exact factual data, making this a descriptive survey (Passmore, Dobbie, Parchman, & Tysinger, 2002). The survey instrument contained three sections. The first section contained two questions about the training the teacher received as part of the CFF grant, and if they still had access to the technology awarded in the grant. The second section of the survey instrument contained three questions. The first question in section two of the survey asked about the amount of time the teacher spent preparing to integrate technology and the second question asked the amount of time the teacher believed it would take to maximize their preparation for the integration of technology. The first two questions in the second section were similar to ones used in a 1997 survey instrument used in a dissertation by Redish. The third question in the second section of the survey is from a 2007 survey instrument utilized in a

dissertation by Queener which asks teachers to rate how adequately they believe their training was to integrate technology. The third section of the survey instrument contained three questions that coved the demographic information about the teacher such as the subject they teach, their teaching experience, and their level of education. The question about the subject the teacher teaches and their level of education consisted of multiple choice questions. The question about the years of teaching experience was a fill in the blank type answer. Survey multi-step and validation process. No surveys were found that inquired teachers about: (1) the number of minutes they spend integrating technology, (2) how many minutes they believe is necessary, (3) if they completed all of the training provided with the CFF grant, and (4) if they still have access to the technology from the grant. The research focuses on those four questions, and they were added to the survey instrument. Due to the addition of new questions that were not found in any existing survey, the entire survey instrument needed to be pilot tested for content and construct validity following the model set forth by Strachota, Schmidt, and Conceicao (2006) which is presented below in Figure 2. This process included content experts reviewing the survey for content validity. The next step included a group of teachers taking the survey. The teachers waited a week or two, and then the same teachers retook the same survey. By comparing the answers from both surveys helped test the reliability of the survey.

65 Figure 2. Survey Creation/Revalidation Overview

Yes

Research Question

No:

/ Survey x adaptable for

Adapt survey

Distribute Survey

Data Caiectkm

Data Analysis

No

ONLINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: Survey Aucftenoe Technical Skills Internet Access

Consider other methods of survey distribution

GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: Cost Efficiency Time Efficiency Methodological Efficiency

Note. Survey creation model. Adapted from The development and validation of a survey instrument for the evaluation of instructional aids, by Strachota, Schmidt, and Conceicao (2006). Presented at The Midwest Research-To-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. University of Missouri-St. Louis. Copyright 2006 .

For content validity, six content experts reviewed the survey for content validity. The group of content experts consisted of technology coordinators, technology coaches, school district administrators, other educational technology professors, and research experts reviewed the instrument for content. The reviewers recommended changes to four of the questions. After making the corrections, the survey instrument review process

started over. Bommel, Hoppenbrouwers, Overbeek, Proper, and Barjis (2010) stated that three content experts were adequate. Malmgreen (2005) compiled a literature review that found two to 20 content experts were adequate. Siegle (2011) stated that five content experts were sufficient. To insure the content validity of this research study, six content experts were more than adequate to test for content validity. To assist with the reliability aspect of the survey instrument, seven teachers took the survey just before Christmas and they completed the survey a second time three weeks later. Approval from the Northcentral University Institutional Review Board (IRB) occurred prior to the teachers taking the survey and approval from IRB was received again after the changes were made to the survey instrument. The comparison between the two results occurred by calculating a Cronbachs alpha to determine a reliability coefficient between the two sets of scores. The recommend alpha value is at least 0.70 (Choudhury, 2010; Garson, 2011). The use of SPSS version 21 aided with the calculation of the Cronbachs alpha coefficient. The results from the first two questions on the first test were identical to the results on the second test. For the question, Approximately, how many minutes per week do you currently spend preparing to integrate technology into your daily lessons?, the calculated Cronbachs alpha was 0.9269 as calculated by Wessa (2012). For the question, Approximately how many minutes per week do believe would need to be spent preparing to integrate technology to maximize technology integration into your lessons?, the calculated Cronbachs alpha was 0.9217 as calculated by Wessa (2012). For the question, I feel adequately trained to implement and use technology in my classroom, the calculated Cronbachs alpha was 0.8485 as calculated by Wessa (2012).

67 Internal validity and proposed research design. The target population for this research study was not the average teacher. The target population was for teachers that already have access to the necessary technology, such as Internet access, a projection device that allows the teacher to share their computer with the students, and have access to enough technology for the students to use it. To insure external validity with the target population, the first step in this research study was to verify that all respondents have met the criteria desired for participants in this study. This verification occurred by removing results from participants who did not complete all of the required training and any results from participants who no longer have access to the technology. After removing these respondents, the results should have increased external validity with the target population. The goal of this research study was to help teachers better integrate technology by identifying the appropriate time allocations to maximize the integration of technology. The other goal was to identify the impact training had on the time required to integrate technology, with the intent of justifying the investment of time to attend/provide training in exchange for saving time later. According to Trochim (2006) external validity refers to the validity of the conclusion of the generalization of the conclusion of the study over the target population. Following Trochims (2006) guidelines, the research participants were randomly sampled from the target population of teachers that have received training and have access to the equipment necessary to integrate technology. The populations targeted in this study were teachers that participated in the CFF grant. These teachers no longer have the barriers previously identified as not have the training and or not having the technology.

68 The next step in this research study was to identify the amount of time a teacher spends integrating technology and the amount of time they think it takes to maximize their technology integration. There was a mean calculated from the number of minutes teachers spend preparing to integrate technology. There was a mean calculated from the number of minutes teachers believed is required to maximize their technology integration. Using a Mest helped to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the two means. If the probability calculated by the r-test is less than the significance level (p=0.05) then the difference between the two means is statically significant. Grouping the responses by the reported perceived satisfaction of the training received, the data analysis revealed that the perceived satisfaction of training statistically affects the amount of time teachers spend preparing to use technology. The survey allowed for five levels of satisfaction with their training. Each level used words instead of numbers to make sure the teacher understands their selection. The data analysis began by calculating the average amount of time the teacher spent preparing to integrate technology for each group. An ANOVA test revealed if there was a statistically significant difference based on training. The next step also used an ANOVA test to reveal if there was a statistically significant difference in the time teachers believed is required to maximize their technology integration based on their satisfaction with their technology training.

Operational Definition of Variables Variables in this correlation quantitative study included the time teachers spend integrating technology, the time they believed is necessary to maximize their technology

69 integration, and the perceived satisfaction of the technology training they have received. In this quantitative study, the dependent variables were the time teachers spent integrating technology and the time they believe is necessary to maximize their technology integration. The independent variable was the perceived satisfaction of technology training received to prepare them to integrate technology. These variables were vital to answering the three research questions. The variables for the time teachers spend integrating technology and the time they believe is necessary to maximize their technology integration allowed for the determination of any difference between the time teachers spent integrating technology and the time they believed is necessary to maximize their technology integration. The variable of the adequacy of training received and the variable of the amount of time teachers spent integrating technology allowed for a correlation between the two variables. That correlation may have helped justify training. The variable of the adequacy of training received and the variable of the amount of time teachers believed was necessary to better integrating technology allowed for a correlation between the two variables. Again, this correlation may have helped justify training. Perceived satisfaction training. This independent variable provided a gauge to measure the perceptions regarding the perceived satisfaction of training received. The collection method for this piece of data was through an Internet based survey. The scale for this data was a Likert type scale ranging from 1 to 5 measuring the perceived satisfaction of the training received. Time teachers spend integrating technology. This dependent variable represented the amount of time teachers are spending to integrate technology. The unit of

70 measure for this variable was in average minutes per week. The expected range was from zero minutes into the hundreds of minutes. Time teachers believe is necessary to maximize their technology integration. This dependent variable represented the amount of time the teachers believed was necessary to maximize the effectiveness of their technology integrations. The unit of measure for this variable was in average minutes per week. The expected range was from zero minutes into the hundreds of minutes. Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis The main method of data collection consisted of an Internet based survey tool from Google. The first step included the selection and construction of the survey instrument. The second step involved obtaining approval from the participating educational institutions and the Northcentral University Institutional Review Board. Thirdly, a comprehensive pilot test was conducted to ensure the validity and reliability of the survey instrument. Following the approval process and survey tool validation, an email to seek participants was sent to the contact person provided by the superintendents of the districts that participated (see Appendix C). This contact person forwarded an email explaining the research and it contained a link to the survey for their high school teachers (see Appendix D). The first question on the survey was asked the participants if they consented to completing to participate in the research. The targeted participants must have completed at least two years of the CFF grant workshops and still have access to the technology. The number of required participants for this research study were calculated utilizing a G*Power Analysis. The test parameters included: an /-test, with a statistical

71 test of linear multiple regressions: ANOVA Fixed effects, omnibus, one-way, with a medium effective size (p = 0.30) a statistical power of 0.80, with five predictors. The sample size calculated was 142. The proposed survey/interview questions are presented in Appendix B. The research included demographic data to provide context for the narrative description of the research study. The demographic information included the discipline taught, educational experience, and the highest degree they achieved. The data collection tool consisted of an Internet based survey that the participants may complete at any location of their choosing that has Internet access. ' To protect the anonymity of the participants, the online data collection survey did not collect personal identifiable information. At all times, participants may have opted out of completing the survey. In the event that a participant chose not to complete the survey, the design of the survey prevented partially completed surveys from counting in the results. There was a mean calculated from the number of minutes teachers spend preparing to integrate technology. There was a mean calculated from the number of minutes teachers believed was required to maximize their technology integration. Using a /-test, it could have been determined if there is a statistically significant difference between the two means or not. If the probability calculated by the /-test was less than the significance level (p=0.05) then the difference between the two means is statically significant. Thus, teachers are not committing the time they believe is required to maximize their technology integration. An ANOVA test helped to identify if there is a statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers spent integrating technology based on the five levels of their perceived satisfaction of the training received. A second ANOVA test helped to identify if there was a statistically significant difference

72 in the amount of time teachers believed was required to maximize their technology integration based on the five levels of their perceived satisfaction of the training received. The survey instrument utilized parts of already proven survey instruments, with additional questions. In this respect, the survey instrument required tests for reliability and validity, as described in the measurement section. Assumptions This study design assumed multiple assumptions. The design of the data collection tool and the methodology for this research study were carefully selected to test the null and alternative hypotheses in this research study. Important assumptions to this research study included that the participants will have answered truthfully, their memory was accurate, their primary language was English, and that they had the abilities to use an online survey. Since all of the training for the CFF grant was in English and the participants had to complete online training, the possible language issue and ability to complete an online survey should not have been an issue. In addition, since the survey instrument did not collect any identifiable information, the participants were assured that all reporting of the data would be a compilation of all participants and not individual districts. This approach was utilized to help reassure teachers to provide honest information. Another assumption was based on the perception that educators would want to help a fellow educator continue their education. It was assumed that teachers would want to participate in research that could help improve student achievement by learning ways to better utilizing a teachers time. With a large number of superintendents having their doctorate and knowing the difficulties getting an adequate number of participants, it was

73 assumed that superintendents would be more willing to have the teachers in their districts assist with the research study. If an inadequate number of superintendents did not agree to participate during the first round, a second request would have been sent to the superintendents. The adequacy of the number of superintendents that agree is based on the size of the districts willing to participate. If an inadequate number of teachers completed the survey, a second request would have been sent seeking additional teacher participants. Limitations This research study was limited by surveying only core high school teachers in Pennsylvania schools. As the findings from this research study may only apply to core high school teachers in Pennsylvania, this research study may extrapolate to most core high school teachers. Another limitation was that the lower the percentage of teachers that agreed to participate, statistically speaking, there is an increased probability that the teachers that did participate have something in common that could influence the results of the research (Passmore, Dobbie, Parchman, & Tysinger, 2002). One possible limitation could be that teachers may have been reluctant to report that they are not willing to commit the time they know is required to get the most out of their integrations of technology. The teacher may also look at it as admitting they are not willing to do what they know is required to improve student achievement and they may be reluctant to admit that on this survey. The emails sent inviting participating students informed the participants about the nature of the research and it informed that the teachers being sought to participate in this research study, were teachers that participated in the CFF

74 grant. The survey instrument was proven reliable and valid before the survey administration began. One of the biggest limitations for this research study was the small number of participants in the target audience. With thousands of teachers participating in the grant, the original goal of getting 200 participants seemed easy, but two requests for participation was necessary before enough participants responded to achieve the desired power level. Along with that limitation was setting the effect size to small, which required a larger population. To correct for this limitation, an effect size of medium was chosen. Delimitations A delimitation of the study is that teachers that participated in the CFF grant are a small subset of the model population of research participants. Trying to establish criteria for equal training and equal access to technology would have been a daunting task. The teachers that participated in this grant already received a minimum baseline of common instruction received by all of the participants. There is also a minimum consistency of technology available to the teachers that they will be investing time to integrate. The technology available to the teachers that participated in the CFF grant is nothing unique to those teachers, many teachers in other grade levels and subjects have the same technology. Ethical Assurances Participants in this study were exposed to minuscule risk of harm, informed consent, right to privacy, and honesty with professional colleagues. As part of seeking Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, school district superintendents were solicited

75 to participate in the research. Their signed letters of consent were submitted to the IRB of Northcentral University. After receiving IRB approval, solicitation for participants employed by those districts began. All participant responses were confidential. Both the district administrators and the participating teachers could have chosen to receive a copy of the completed study after it is published. Every participant agreed to the informed consent form prior to taking the data collection survey. The survey started by assuring teachers about the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses, their right to not answer any and all questions, and their right to withdraw from the study at any time. If participants chose to sign up for the nominal inducements, they were instructed to email the code they received at the end of the survey to provide an email address so that winning participants could be contacted. Entering the contest was optional. The code displayed was the same for all participants. If the participants emailed from a personal email address there was no way to associate the participant and the data they entered. The emails received for the purpose of entering the contest were placed in a folder inside the email software being used. The email addresses were not taken out of that system or shared with anyone. The participants who won a prize were sent an email informing them of their prize. The email requested the persons name and their address. Responding to that email with the requested identifiable information was optional. If a participant wanted to claim his or her prize, the individual was required to provide a mailing address so that the gift card could be mailed. To protect the identity of the participants, none of the names, addresses, or anything identifiable was shared about the participants, to include the participants that won the inducements.

76 Summary The purpose of this quantitative research was to learn more about the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology into their classroom, the amount of time teachers believe is required to integrate technology into their classroom to achieve the maximum results, and the impact training on ways to use and integrate technology has on the time teachers spend and/or would like to spend integrating technology. With this research study focusing on the barrier of time, the participants in the research must have overcome some of the other identified barriers such as a lack of equipment and a lack of training. To insure the teachers that participated in the research have adequate equipment and training on how to use and integrate technology, a subset of all teachers needed to be surveyed. Only teachers that participated in the CFF grant sponsored by the Pennsylvania Department of Education are being counted in this survey. The data collection method used for this research study was an online survey. Since the survey was newly created it went through a multi-step validation processes that included content experts and pilot testing. The independent variable for this research study was the perceived satisfaction with the training received on using and integrating technology. Participants selected one of five responses to answer this question. The dependent variables for this research study were the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology and the amount of time they think is necessary to maximize their integration of technology. For both of these questions the responses were supposed to be in minutes. As part of the CFF grant the teachers needed to have participated in online classes and completed online surveys so the assumption that the teachers could complete the survey were very likely. The participants were emailed

information about the research and a link to the online survey. By not collecting any identifiable information and as part of the information provided to the teachers they were assured that there responses would be kept confidential. The results from a /-test revealed if there was a statistical significance in the difference between the mean of the number of minutes teachers spend integrating technology and the amount of time they believe is required to maximize their technology integration. The results from an ANOVA test revealed if there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology and their level of satisfaction with the training they received. The results from an ANOVA test revealed if there was a statistical significant difference in the amount of time a teacher believes is required to integrate technology and their level of satisfaction with the training they received.

78 Chapter 4: Findings Since teachers know technology has a positive impact on education and they are not using technology, there must be barriers preventing them from integrating technology. Barriers that are preventing teachers from integrating technology include: lack of professional development, lack of resources, and lack of time (Howard, 2011). Integrating technology requires taking the time to learn the technology and preparing the lessons (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2009). This research study focused on the effect of the barrier of time. Are teachers committing the amount of time they believe is required to integrate technology into the classroom? How much time is required? The purpose of this descriptive and correlational quantitative research was to identify how long it takes teachers to integrate technology in the classroom, as well as how long they believe it takes to maximize this integration. The study further evaluates the training that teachers must go through to utilize such technology, and if this training impacts the time required to fully integrate it. Research question one was descriptive in nature while research questions two and three were correlational. Research question one looked to identify the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and the amount of time they think is required to get the maximum benefits from their integration of technology, making question one descriptive. The numbers of minutes a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology and the number of minutes a teacher believes is required to get the maximum effectiveness from their integration of technology into the classroom, required for research question one are in the form of average minutes per week and these number of minutes are the foundation for the research. Research question two looked to identify a correlation between the impact

79 training has on the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology into the classroom. Research question three looked to identify a correlation between the impact training has on the amount of time teachers believe is required to get the maximum benefits from their integration of technology, thus making research questions two and three correlational in nature. The variable collected for research questions two and three was a five item Likert-type scale for the participants to select their satisfaction with the training they received on integrating technology. The level of satisfaction is compared through a correlation with the number of minutes teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and through a correlation with the number of minutes teachers believe is necessary to get the maximum effectiveness of their integration of technology collected for research question one. This chapter will present the statistical analyses of the data collected, and will conclude with a discussion of the findings. This descriptive and correlational quantitative study addressed the following research questions and hypotheses: Q l. To what extent, if any, is there a difference in the time teachers spend

preparing to integrate technology and their belief about the amount of time required to maximize their integration of technology? Q2. What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received

have on the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology? Q3 What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received

have on the amount of time a teacher believes is required to integrate technology? Hypotheses

80 Hlo. Teachers are committing the time that they believe is required to prepare to maximize their technology integration.
H la. Teachers are not committing the time that they believe is required to prepare

to maximize their technology integration. H2o. There is no statistical significance in the amount of time required to integrate technology between teachers that have received adequate training and those that have not. H2a. There is a statistical difference in the amount of time required to integrate technology between teachers that have received adequate training and those that have not. H3o. There is no statistical difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to maximize their technology integration between teachers that have received adequate training and those that have not.
H3a. There is a statistical difference in the amount of time teachers believe is

required to maximize their technology integration between teachers that have received adequate training and those that have not. Results The target population of this study included teachers who participated in the CFF grant. Eighteen school district superintendents from districts that participated in the grant allowed the solicitation of their teachers to participate in the research. In total, 202 teachers completed the survey instrument. To help ensure that this research study measured the barrier of time and not other identified barriers, such as a lack of equipment and lack of training, only teachers who still had access to similar technology as provided

81 in the CFF grant, and teachers who completed the CFF training were counted in the research. A G*Power analysis that meets the design of the first descriptive research question with 142 participants with a medium effect size (d=0.25) and an error probability of 0.05, resulted in a power of 0.907. The design of the second and third research questions utilized a correlational design and a G*Power analysis of five groups with a medium effect size (d=0.30) and a statistical power of 0.80 led the current study to consider recruiting 142 participants for research questions two and three. Of the 202 teachers who participated in the survey, only 142 responses met these prerequisites, and answered all of the questions. The original request to superintendents asking for permission to seek participants from their staff did not yield the expected number of participating districts. At that time, the goal of this research study was to focus on districts that participated in all three years of the CFF grant. To improve the number of qualified participants, the research was changed to include superintendents that participated in two or three years of the grant. A second request was sent to all of the superintendents that did not respond to the first request seeking permission to ask their teachers to participate in the research. With the low number of districts that were allowing their teachers to be solicited, the superintendents that participated in year two of the grant were contacted to see if their teachers may be solicited to participate in this research study. After receiving IRB approval, the data collection process began in order to seek individual teachers that would participate. Once it appeared that the number of responses would not be adequate to reach the desired significance level, another round of emails were sent. All of the districts that did not have teachers enter for an inducement from an email address for that district were contacted a second time. After the second

request, more teachers did participate. After all of the requests, the number of participants was still considerably less than the number of desired responses to meet a satisfactory confidence level for this study. In this respect, fewer districts agreed to participate than was expected as some districts had previous engagements in other research studies, while others simply did not want to ask their teachers to participate in such tasks. To counter the lower than expected number of participants, the effect size (d ) was increased from 0.25 to 0.30. By increasing the effect size (d) a statistical power of 0.81 was achieved. Research Question One The first research question was: To what extent, if any, is there a difference in the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and their belief about the amount of time required to maximize their integration of technology? The answers from the first two questions in section two of the survey instrument provided the data for this research question. The null hypotheses indicated that teachers spend what they believe is the required amount of time to maximize the effectiveness of the technology integrated. When it comes to the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology, the average number of minutes reported was 56 (M = 55.7, SD = 60.2) minutes. The 56 minutes was obtained from the answers reported for question one, in section two of the survey instrument. The average number of minutes that teachers believed was required to maximize their technology integration was 131 (M = 131.3, SD = 155.9) minutes. The 131 minutes was obtained from the answers reported for question two, in section two of the survey instrument.

To test the hypothesis that teachers spend what they believe to be the required amount of time to maximize their integration of technology, the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology (Group A) was analyzed with the amount of time teachers believe is required to get the maximum results from their integration of technology (Group B). A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and the amount of time teachers believe is required to prepare to integrate technology into the classroom in order to get the maximum effect of their integration. There was a significant difference in the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology (M = 55.74, SD = 60.383) and the time teachers believe is required to integrate technology to get the maximum benefit from the integration (M = 131.27, SD= 156.420); t (141) = -6.951,/? = 0.000. These results suggest that teachers are not spending the time that they believe is required to get the maximum effect from their integration of technology. For research question one, a G*Power analysis of 142 participants with a medium effect size (d=0.25) and an error probability of 0.05, resulted in a power level of 0.907, which is above the 0.80 desired power level for this study. Research Question Two The second research question was: What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received have on the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology? The answers from the first and third survey questions in section two provided the data for this research question. The null hypothesis indicated that there is no statistical significant difference in the amount of time required to integrate technology in correlation with the satisfaction of their training on integrating technology.

84 A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of training on the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology. There was no significant effect of training on the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology at the p < 0.05 level for the five levels of satisfaction with the training they received [F(4,137) = 1.714, p = 0.150]. The details of the ANOVA test are shown in Table 1. The resulting differences were not statistically significant, therefore, no Post hoc comparison was performed. These results show no statistically significant difference in the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology when compared to the teachers satisfaction with the training they received. A G*Power analysis of 142 participants with an effect size of 0.30 with five predictors revealed a power level of 0.815, which is above the desired level of 0.80, and the p value of (0.150) indicated that the results from the data supported the null hypothesis for research question two. Table 2 shows the results for the dependent variable which addressed how satisfied the teachers were with their training on integrating technology (Group B). Table 3 contains the mean number of minutes teachers spend preparing to integrate technology (Group A) separated by the level of satisfaction of the training the teacher have received (Group B). Table 1 Research Question Two ANOVA Test Between Groups Within Groups Total SS 24502.829 489594.530 514097.359 df 4 137 141 MS 6125.707 3573.683 F 1.714 Sig. .150

85 Table 2 Research Question Two Adequacy o f Training Received I feel adequately trained to implement and use technology in my classroom. Strongly Agree 22% Agree 44% Neither Agree or Disagree 16% Disagree 12% Strongly Disagree________________________________________ 6%

Table 3 Research Question Two: The Average Amount o f Time Teachers Spend Preparing to Integrate Technology Separated by the Adequacy o f Training Received Adequacy of Training Received Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Time Spent Preparing to Integrate Technology 55.6 minutes 68.3 minutes 33.5 minutes 42.6 minutes 48.4 minutes

Research Question Three The third research question was: What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received have on the amount of time a teacher believes is required to integrate technology? The answers from the second and third survey questions from section two provided the data for this research question. The null hypotheses indicated that there is no statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to integrate technology to achieve maximum effectiveness (Group A) in correlation with the satisfaction of their technology integration training (Group B).

86 A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of training on the time teachers believe is required to spend preparing to integrate technology in order to get the maximum effect from their integration. There was no significant effect of training on the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology at the p < 0.05 level for the five levels of satisfaction with the training they received [F(4,137) = 0.525, p = 0.717]. The details of the ANOVA test are shown in Table 4. The resulting differences were not statistically significant, therefore, no Post hoc comparison was performed. These results show no statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to prepare to integrate technology in the classroom in order to get the maximum effect from their integration when compared to the teachers satisfaction with the training they received. A G*Power analysis of 142 participants with an effect size of 0.30 with five predictors revealed a power level of 0.815, which is above the desired level of 0.80, and the p value of (0.150) indicated that the results from the data supported the null hypothesis for research question three. Table 5 shows the results for the dependent variable, which addressed how satisfied the teachers were with their training on integrating technology (Group B). Table 6 contains the mean number of minutes teachers believe is required to get the maximum effect from their technology integration (Group A) based on the level of satisfaction with the training they have received (Group B).

Table 4 Research Question Three ANOVA Test SS 52104.502 3397765.787 3449870.289 df 4 137 141 MS_______ F 13026.125 .525 24801.210 Sig. .717

Between Groups Within Groups Total

87 Table 5 Research Question Three Adequacy o f Training Received I feel adequately trained to implement and use technology in my classroom. Strongly Agree 22% Agree 44% Neither Agree or Disagree 16% Disagree 12% Strongly Disagree_______________________6%

Table 6 Research Question Three: The Average Amount o f Time Teachers Believe is Required to Integrate Technology to Achieve the Maximum Results Separated by the Adequacy o f Training Received Time believed to be required compared to Adequacy o f Training Received Time the teachers believe is required to get the maximum result from their integration ______________________________________ of technology into the classroom________ Strongly Agree 113.1 minutes Agree 129.8 minutes Neither Agree or Disagree 146.3 minutes Disagree 168.6 minutes Strongly Disagree______________________ 91.3 minutes__________________________ Adequacy of Training Received

Descriptive Statistics of Participants Out of the 142 responses who participated in this research study, with respect to the highest degree earned, 113 teachers earned a Masters degree and 24 earned a Bachelors degree. Table 7 shows the educational breakdown of the participants. Table 7 Demographics o f Participants by Highest Degree Completed Highest Degree Completed Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Doctorate

17% 82% 1%

88 Respective to the years of experience, the teachers were grouped in four ranges, as listed in Table 8.

Table 8 Demographics o f Participants by Years o f Experience Years of Experience Less than 10 years 1 0 - 19 years 20 - 29 years 30 years or more

38% 39% 15% 7%

Respective to the subject taught, four subjects had at least 10 responses. Details on the subject taught are listed in Table 9. Table 9 Demographics o f Participants by Subject Taught Subject English Math Science Social Studies Responses 23 25 32 18

Evaluation of Findings This research study was conducted to determine whether or not teachers are committing the time they believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integrations of technology into the classroom and to what degree their training has on the time required for this integration. This study was conducted by collecting data on two independent variables and one dependent variable. The independent variables included: (1) the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology, and (2) the amount of time they think is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integration of technology.

89 The dependent variable utilized in this research study was represented by how satisfied the participants were with the training they received. The participants in this research study were comprised of teachers who participated in the CFF grant sponsored by the PA Department of Education. Research Question 1. To what extent, if any, is there a difference in the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and their belief about the amount of time required to maximize their integration of technology? The mean amount of minutes that teachers spend integrating technology was 55.74 minutes with a standard deviation of 60.38 minutes. The mean amount of time the teachers believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integration of technology is 131.27 minutes, with a standard deviation of 156.42 minutes. The mean amount of time teachers spend integrating technology and the time they believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integration of technology demonstrated a p value of 0.000 and a correlation of 0.601, as illustrated in Table 5. With the p value below 0.05 the results are considered statistically significant. A G* Power analysis of 142 participants with an effect size of 0.25 and an error probability of 0.05 revealed a power level of 0.907. The calculated power level was above the required power level of 0.80, indicating that the results are statistically significant and the power level was high enough to be considered relevant. Thus, the data supports Hypothesis H la: That teachers are not committing the time they believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their technology integration. If teachers are not investing the time they think is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integrations of technology, this indicates that teachers do not have the time they think is required to maximize their integration of technology.

90 Thus, time is a barrier to the integration of technology, which agrees with the research that found time to be a barrier preventing teachers from integration of technology (An & Reigeluth, 2011; Grunwald et al., 2010; Educational Technology, 2007). With the time restraints and demands put on teachers, taking the time to integrate technology is a major barrier (Bull, et al., 2008). The results for research question one indicated that teachers are not committing the time to integrate technology that the teacher believes is required to get the most out of their integration of technology. Accordingly, the results for research question one agrees with previous research that demonstrated that teachers do not think it is worth their time to create the lessons that integrate technology (Lu & Overbaugh, 2008). The fact that teachers do not believe it is worth their time to integrate technology could be caused by the amount of time they have invested in other initiates (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006). Another reason why teachers may not believe it is worth investing their time to get the most effective use of their integration of technology relates to how close they are to retirement as teachers close to retirement age were less likely to invest the time into instructional technology (Davies, 2011). Research Question 2. What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received have on the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology? With research question two, comparing the number of minutes with one of five levels of satisfaction with the training received, the formula required for the G*Power analysis was different from the one used in research question one. An ANOVA test comparing teachers feelings of adequacy in their technology integration training with the time they spend preparing to integrate the technology demonstrated a p value of 0.25,

91 which is above 0.05. A G*Power analysis of 142 participants with an effect size of 0.30 and an error probability of 0.05, revealed a power level of 0.815 which is above the required power level of 0.80. Thus, these results achieved the desired power level to support Hypothesis H2o: That there is no statistically significant difference in the amount of time required to integrate technology between teachers who have received adequate training and those who have not. The mean amount of minutes teachers spend integrating technology is 56 minutes. The mean amount of time in which teachers strongly agreed that they are adequately trained to integrate technology is also 56 minutes, with a high of 300 minutes. The teachers who strongly disagreed that they were adequately trained to integrate technology had a mean of 49 minutes and a high of 120 minutes, while teachers in the middle had a mean of 33 minutes and a high of 90 minutes. These results do not agree with previous research that found that teachers that attended training required less time to integrate educational technology (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Marino & Beecher, 2010; Zhao & Bryant, 2006). Previous research found that professional development is one of the most important factors in overcoming the barrier of time (Ertmer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006). Previous researchers found that professional development not only helps to build a positive attitude toward the integration of technology into the classroom, professional development also helps to encourage teachers to spend the extra time needed to get the most out of their integrations of technology (Holden & Rada, 2011). This research does not agree with the previous research that was found to show that professional development makes the teachers more efficient at using technology and then

92 reducing the amount of time required to effectively integrate technology (Berlin & White,
2012 ).

Research Question 3. What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received have on the amount of time a teacher believes is required to integrate technology? Research question three was similar in design to research question two, and the same formula was utilized to calculate the G*Power analysis. An ANOVA test comparing teachers feelings of adequacy in their technology integration training with the time they spend preparing to integrate technology demonstrated a p value of 0.717, which is above 0.05. With this p value, it would not be statistically significant to perform a post hoc test between the groups. A G*Power analysis of the study with 142 participants, an effect size of 0.30, and an error probability of 0.05, revealed a power level of 0.815. The calculated power level is above the required power level of 0.80. The power level supports Hypothesis H3o: That there is no statistical difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to maximize their technology integration between teachers who have received adequate training and those that have not. The mean amount of minutes teachers spend integrating technology is 131 minutes. The mean amount of time for teachers who strongly agreed that they are adequately trained to integrate technology is 113 minutes, with a high of 600 minutes. The teachers who strongly disagreed that they were adequately trained to integrate technology had a mean of 91 minutes and a high of 360 minutes, while teachers in the middle had a mean of 146 minutes and a high of 1260 minutes. This value, 1260 minutes, appears to be a typographical error on the part of the teacher completing the

93 survey. The teachers that agree that they were adequately trained to integrate technology had a mean of 130 minutes and teachers that disagree that they were adequately trained to integrate technology had a mean of 169 minutes. Previous research compared the affect training has on the time required to integrate technology. This research question looked at the perceived amount of time required to maximize the effectiveness of technology integration. Unlike previous research, no correlation was found that teachers that attended training believe it will take less time to get the maximum impact out of their integration educational technology (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Marino & Beecher, 2010; Zhao & Bryant, 2006). What uses of technology teachers consider an integration of technology varies from teacher to teacher, for example, a teacher using PowerPoint instead of writing on a chalkboard is different from having students use a laptop to do research (Hutchison & Reinking, 2010). The level of training a teacher has affects their definition of integrating technology because they learn new ideas on how to use technology (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Zhao & Bryant, 2006; Lim & Khine, 2006). When teachers think about the time they believe is required to integrate technology, the differences in time may not be statistically significant if the teachers are thinking about different types of integrations. One example of an issue found in previous research was a lack of a definition of integrating technology as some integrations are more complex and require more preparation time than simple tasks (Bebell & O Dwyer, 2010). To provide an equal comparison, teachers need to be timed, while completing the same tasks or preparing to integrate technology in the same way before and after participating in professional development.

94 Summary This study was conducted to investigate the amount of time that teachers believe is required to integrate technology in their classrooms and the impact that training has on the time required for this integration. This research study was accomplished by collecting two independent variables: (1) the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology, and (2) the amount of time they think is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integration of technology. The dependent variable was represented by how satisfied the participants were with the training they received. This study was not able to include the desired number of participants, but the findings agreed with the first hypothesis that teachers are not committing the time that they believe is required to prepare to maximize their technology integration as presented in Chapter 1. Research question one compared the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology into their classroom and the amount of time teachers think is required to prepare to integrate technology to get the maximum benefit. The results for research question one show that teachers are not spending what they believe to be the required amount of time integrating technology in the classroom in order to maximize its impact with their students. This concurs with previous research that found time to be a barrier to the integration of technology (Grunwald et al., 2010; Bull et al., 2008). With respect to research question two, which compared the amount of time spent integrating technology and the amount of time spent on training, the results were not statistically significant. Without more participants, the results presented do not concur with other studies, nor do they go against other studies (Zhao & Bryant, 2006) which have found that better trained teachers require less time to integrate technology than teachers with less training. In the

third research question, which compared the amount of time that teachers think is required to integrate technology and training, the results were also not statistically significant.

96 Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions Educational technology allows teachers to improve student achievement in ways that have not been possible before, but many teachers are not using such technologies effectively to create these positive improvements in their students achievement (Lowther et al., 2008; Project Red, 2010). Teachers know that when utilized effectively, technology improves student achievement (Franklin, 2007). However, many teachers are not utilizing technology effectively and there must be barriers preventing them from either utilizing technology or from using technology effectively. Some of the identified barriers preventing teachers from integrating technology include a lack of time and resources (Howard, 2011). The participants for this research study were selected because: (1) their schools have the resources to integrate new technologies, and (2) they have received training. By including teachers that have already received the requisite training that are somewhat familiar with the technology, the above listed barriers should have little to no impact on these teachers or the results found in this research study. With time identified as a barrier preventing the integration of technology into the classroom, the purpose of this quantitative study was to identify the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology in their classrooms, and the amount of time they think is necessary to prepare to integrate technology in a way that maximizes the technologys effectiveness. Since training on the integration of technology into the classroom be proven to help save time (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Marino & Beecher, 2010; Zhao & Bryant, 2006), a secondary purpose of this research study was to research the impact that training has on the time required in integrating technology. The key variables utilized in this research study included two independent variables and one

97 dependent variable. The independent variables included the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology and the amount of time they think is required to prepare to integrate technology in ways that maximize the technologys effectiveness. The data collected for the independent variables were both open text fields for the participant to enter a number of minutes. The dependent variable utilized in this research study was represented by the adequacy of training that the teachers believed that they received in integrating technology in their classrooms. This variable was collected in the form of a five item Likert-type scale. All of the data collected was by an online survey. No prior research was found that provided a numerical representation of the amount of time that teachers spend preparing to integrate technology in their classrooms, or the amount of time in which teachers believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of the integration. The goal for research question one was to establish a numeric value representing the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and the amount of time they think is required to maximize the effectiveness of the integration. This research study could help encourage administrators to effectively schedule their daily tasks to allow more time to improve the integration of technology. The intent of research question two was to identify if a correlation can be made identifiable between: (1) the level of adequacy felt by a teacher with their training, and (2) the amount of time the teacher spends preparing to integrate technology. The intent of research question three was to identify if a correlation can be made identifiable between: (1) the level of adequacy felt by a teacher with their training, and (2) the amount of time the teacher believes is required to integrate technology in order to maximize the effectiveness of their integration. The goal for this part of the research was to establish a numerical

98 justification for teachers to attend training on the utilization and integration of technology in the classroom. Before the collection of data began, consent from school district superintendents and IRB approval from Northcental University was received. Following approval, the participants received an email seeking their participation in the study. The data collection method used for this research study was an Internet-based survey. The Internet-based survey allowed for an accurate, credible, and anonymous data collection method. The anonymity of the participants helped reduce ethical concerns. The method of data collection used had a few important assumptions, which included: (1) the participants had to be truthful in their answers, (2) their memory had to be accurate, (3) they had to have the ability to use an Internet-based survey, and (4) their primary language needed to be English. With the target population for this research study being teachers who participated in the CFF grant, most of those assumptions were alleviated. As part of the grant, the teachers were required to take online training and complete online questionnaires that were only conducted in English. These assumptions should not have been a hindrance on the outcome of this research study. With this knowledge concerning each participants previous experience, it is reasonable to assume the data is valid and reliable. The remainder of this chapter covers the research implications, recommendations, and conclusions.

Implications Following the Diffusion of Innovations Theory, which focuses on the way new technology permeates society and education, it takes time to integrate, implement and get the most out of technology (Diffusion of Innovation Theory, 2013). The five stages of

99 technology innovation are: (1) knowledge, having the people understand the technology, (2) persuasion, having the people form a favorable attitude toward the technology, (3) decision, having the people committee to using the technology, (4) Implementation, actually using the technology, and (5) confirmation, having the positive outcomes from the use of the technology (Clarke, 2012). Teachers are using educational technology so they have the knowledge they have, the persuasion to use technology, and they have made the decision to utilize the technology. The current state of the integration of educational technology into the classroom is occurring in the implementation stage of the Diffusion of Innovation Theory. To improve the integration of technology into the classroom, technology proponents need to continue to work on the actual use of technology in the classroom. The five stages of technology adoption by individuals is also divided into five adopter categories known as: (1) innovators which make up of 2.5% of the population, (2) early adopters which make up of 13.5% of the population, (3) early majority which make up of 34% of the population, (4) late majority which make up of 34% of the population, and (5) laggards which make up of 16% of the population (Diffusion of Innovation Theory, 2013; White, 2008). Of the teachers that responded, 20% reported that they are committing the amount of time that they think is required to get the maximum impact out of their integration of technology. This information, in respect with the five states of technology adoptions, indicates that the current state of educational technology integration is in the early majority stage of the population. Research question one was addressed by collecting two quantitative data elements. The data collections for both of these data elements were in the form of an

100 open text area for the participants to enter a number of minutes. There was no range limit or error checking to the value entered by the teachers. Research Question 7. To what extent, if any, is there a difference in the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and their belief about the amount of time required to maximize their integration of technology? Hlo. Teachers are committing the time that they believe is required to prepare to maximize their technology integration. Hla. Teachers are not committing the time that they believe is required to prepare to maximize their technology integration. The mean amount of minutes teachers spend integrating technology is 55.74 and the mean amount of minutes the teachers believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integration of technology is 131.27. Thus, this data supported Hypothesis l a which stated that: Teachers are not committing what they believe to be the required time to maximize the effectiveness of their technology integration. This data also concurs with previous research that discovered a lack of time to be a barrier to the integration of technology (Lowther et al., 2008; Anonymous, 2008; Bebell & ODwyer, 2010; Lin & Lu, 2010). With the limitation of this research caused by only using core high school teachers that participated in the CFF grant, the time estimation may not be accurate for other teachers. Younger students may not have the same computer skills as older students and may require different types of technological integrations. The number of unique lessons that a high school teacher needs to create may vary from the number of unique lessons that other teachers may need to create. The results concurred with the

101 problem that teachers do not have the time necessary to integrate technology to get the maximum student achievement through their integration of technology. The purpose of this study was to identify a numeric representation to the amount of time (55.74 minutes) teachers spend preparing to integrate technology into their classroom and the amount of time (131.27 minutes) teachers think is required to maximize their integration of technology. The significance of the results from this research is that school administrators now know that if they could free up about one hour per week for classroom teachers to spend preparing to integrate technology, teachers believe they would be able to get the most effective uses of their integrations of technology. Research question two was addressed by collecting a third quantitative element in the data. This data element collected the level of satisfaction a teacher had with the training they received on integrating technology. This element was collected with the utilization of a five item Likert-type scale scoring system. Research Question 2. What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received have on the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology? H2o. There is no statistical significance in the amount of time required to integrate technology between teachers that have received adequate training and those that have not. H2a. There is a statistical difference in the amount of time required to integrate technology between teachers that have received adequate training and those that have not.

102 The data collected on the correlation between what teachers believe to be adequate technology integration training and the time they spend integrating technology provided and adequate power level to support the results. There were enough participants to support the claim that there is no correlation between the time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology and their perceived satisfaction with the training they received. Thus, the data supports Hypothesis 2o: That there is no statistically significant difference in the amount of time required to integrate technology between teachers the perceived levels of satisfaction with the training received. The results for research question two are as follows: the mean amount of minutes teachers spend integrating technology is 56 minutes. The mean amount of time for teachers who strongly agreed that they were adequately trained to integrate technology was also 56 minutes. Teachers who strongly disagreed that they were adequately trained to integrate technology had a mean of 49 minutes while teachers who neither agreed nor disagreed that they were adequately trained had a mean of 33 minutes. Of the teachers who participated in the study, 66% felt they were at least adequately trained to integrate technology, while 16% felt they were not adequately trained to integrate technology. Previous studies found that high quality training led to a decrease in the amount of time spent integrating technology (Overbaugh & Lu, 2009; Marino & Beecher, 2010; Zhao & Bryant, 2006). The results did not fit with the goal of this research question to find that attending training on integrating technology reduces the amount of time spent preparing to integrate technology. The goal was to provide teachers with numeric data justifying investing the time to attend training to save time in the future. The limitation caused by using the teachers that participated in the CFF grant does limit the results to core high school

103 teachers. Another limiting factor is that all of these teachers attended the identical training. One possible explanation may be that better trained teachers may require less time to complete the same technology integrations as less trained teachers. However, once teachers learn what they can do with technology they can do more in depth and more effective integrations of technology, which may take additional time. Research question three is similar to research question two, and utilizes the same data collected about the satisfaction of the teachers integration of technology and the data element from the first question about the amount of time a teacher believes is required to get the maximum effectiveness out of their integration of technology. Research Question 3. What effect, if any, does the perceived satisfaction of the training received have on the amount of time a teacher believes is required to integrate technology? H3o. There is no statistical difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to maximize their technology integration between teachers that have received adequate training and those that have not. H3a. There is a statistical difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to maximize their technology integration between teachers that have received adequate training and those that have not. The results in the comparison of the beliefs of teachers in the adequacy of their technology integration training with the time they believed was required to prepare to integrate technology was not statistically significant. The power level was above the desired level for this research study. Thus, the data supported Hypothesis 3o: That there is no significant difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to maximize

104 their integration of technology and how adequately they feel they have been trained to integrate technology. The mean amount of minutes that teachers believe is required to integrate technology is 131 minutes. The mean amount of time for teachers who strongly agree that they are adequately trained believe 113 minutes is what is needed. The teachers who strongly disagreed that they were adequately trained to integrate technology had a mean of 91 minutes. In an evaluation of the teachers that neither agree nor disagree that they are adequately trained, their mean was 146 minutes. The 146 minutes of the teachers that neither agreed or nor disagreed that they are adequately trained is longer than the 131 minutes that teachers who strongly agreed and the 191 minutes that teachers who strongly disagreed with the satisfaction of the training they received. The teachers who neither agreed nor disagreed about their satisfaction with the training they received spent 146 minutes which is more than the 138 minutes spent by teachers who agreed or disagreed that they were satisfied with their training. The results for research question three did not fit with the goal of this research question which was to determine if the attendance of training on integrating technology reduces the amount of time teachers thought was required to maximize their integration of technology. One of the goals of this research was to provide teachers with numeric data justifying for investing time to attend training to save time in the future. One limitation in this research was the use of teachers that participated in the CFF grant. These teachers were core high school teachers, so these results may only apply to core high school teachers. Another limiting factor is that all of these teachers attended the identical training. One possible explanation may be that better trained teachers may

105 require less time to complete the same technology integrations as less trained teachers, but once teachers learn what they can do with technology they do more and that takes additional time. Recommendations Time constraints in schools are a significant barrier to the integration of technology (Bull et al., 2008). Based on the compilation of the results from this research study, teachers are not investing the time they believe is required to maximize the effectiveness of their integration of technology in the classroom. If school administrators want to maximize their investment in educational technology, they need to encourage teachers to invest the time required to maximize their integration of technology. Teachers have reported that they feel that it is not worth investing their time to integrate technology into their classrooms hardware (Lu & Overbaugh, 2008). This encouragement can be achieved in several ways, including: 1. An environment could be established that allows teachers to collaborate more efficiently with each other on ways to integrate technology. Here, teachers could share lesson plans and save preparation time. By sharing lesson plans the teachers save time, because creating lesson plans that integrate technology takes time ((Ertermer, Ottenbreit-Leftwich, & York, 2006). In South Korea and Japan, where their students typically outperform U.S. students, their teachers have more time during the work day for collaboration (Mehta, 2013). European and Asian countries also allow 15 to 20 hours per week for teachers to create lesson plans, collaborate, and participate in professional development (Wei, et al., 2009) while American teachers only get three to five hours per

106 week for the same tasks (Darling-Hammond & Friedlaender, 2009; Wei, et al., 2009). 2. District administrators could look into other work-related tasks such as taking attendance, recording grades, and attending meetings that are competing for the time of the teachers and try to reduce the amount of time required for those tasks. Teachers are busy people with many things competing for their time (Mishra, Koeler, & Kereluik, 2009; Marwin & Sweeney, 2010). With the pressure to devote class time to normal day-to-day classroom management the teachers do not have the time to devote to technology (Al-Bataineh, et al., 2008). This reduction in time could be accomplished by using technology to lessen the time required to perform the tasks, and by identifying any tasks that could be eliminated. 3. District administrators could create an incentive plan to encourage teachers to invest in the time needed to maximize the effectiveness of their integration of technology. At the college level, professors that spend time attending professional development, want to be able to take time off later as a way to compensate for their time (Vermillion, Young, & Hannafin, 2007) and this could be an option for K12 teachers. Another option is to compensate teachers for the time they spend in professional development (Siemens, 2006). 4. District administrators could provide additional time during the school day for teachers to prepare to integrate technology. One common request from teachers is for more planning time to be part of their normal workday (Parks & Ertmer, 2008). Integrating technology requires time for training, time to

play with and learn the technology, time to build confidence with the technology, and time to create lessons that employ the technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2009; Lim & Khine, 2006). 5. Another possible way to save time during the school day could be to explore the effect of block scheduling on the time it takes teachers to prepare lesson plans. Block scheduling is where students spend twice the amount of time in a class, but finish a full year course in half of a school year. This reduces the number of courses a teacher needs to prepare for daily, while providing twice as much time for instruction or to use technology. The driving factor in the integration of technology is to improve student achievement. Technology is the most effective way to improve student achievement (Havey-Woodall, 2009), therefore, the time spent integrating technology is not as important as the results of the integration of technology on student achievement. Since many district administrators are turning to technology to help improve student achievement (Lowther et al., 2008), and there is already research showing that effectively integrating technology helps student achievement (Rashid & Elahi, 2012). One area for future research would be to see if there is a correlation between the amount of time a teacher spends integrating technology with students and any increase or decrease in student achievement. School district administrators have already invested a lot of time providing professional development (Ham, 2010), but 85% of teachers want more professional development (Purcell et al., 2008). In this respect, when a correlation in student achievement can be established, a more compelling argument could be provided

108 for investing the amount of time to use the technology and the time needed for the training. A second area for future research in conjunction with the above recommendation would be to investigate what the ideal amount of time for teachers to spend preparing to integrate technology in their classroom. This could be achieved by comparing the amount of time teachers spends preparing to integrate technology into their classroom and student achievement on standardized testing. In this respect, the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology would be grouped by time teachers spend integrating technology in order to determine if different ranges (based in minutes) have different impacts on student achievement. Another possible area to explore is to investigate if an increase of a set number of minutes provides a measurable improvement in student achievement. Conclusions This study provided varying statistically data for the three research questions and provided recommendations and suggestions for a future research. The results for the first question were in fact statistically significant, and quantified that teachers are not spending the time they believe is necessary to integrate technology effectively. This result agrees with research that found time to be a barrier to the integration of technology (Grunwald et al., 2010; Bull et al., 2008). The results also show that on average, high school teachers who have had technology training need about an extra hour a week to integrate technology more effectively. School district administrators now know that if they want to maximize the effectiveness of the integration of technology in their school or district, they need to find ways to provide the teachers with additional time or reduce

109 the amount of time required for other tasks. This concurs with previous research that found time constrains in schools are significant barriers for teachers when it comes to integrating technology into their classroom (Bull, et al, 2008). In this respect, it takes time to create lesson plans, find sources of information, learn how to use the technology, and schedule the computer labs (Lu & Overbaugh, 2008). This leads to some areas requiring further research. Accordingly, one of the driving factors for integrating technology is to improve student achievement (Lowther et al., 2008). Further research, in this respect, could be conducted in order to determine if there is a correlation between the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and student achievement. The data collected for the second research question reached the desired power level but the results were found not to be statistically significant. The second research question asked whether or not the satisfaction the teacher had with their training to integrate technology had an impact on the time teachers spent preparing to integrate technology. The data revealed that there was no significant difference in the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology into their classroom on the bases of the level of satisfaction they had with the training they received. This contradicts previous research that found that better trained teachers required less time to integrate technology (Berlin & White, 2012; Marino & Beecher, 2010). Depending on the reason why professional development did not impact the time required to integrate technology, the findings could agree with some research. It is very common for teachers to spend hours in worthless professional development (Harvey-Woodall, 2009). Another possible reason why no statistically significant difference was found in the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology when compared to their satisfaction with

110 the training they received could be that once teachers leam what they can do with technology, they spend more time because the integrate technology more, or their integrations are more complex (Guzey & Roehrig, 2009; Lim & Khine, 2006). Further research is suggested in this area in order to determine what impact training of teachers on the integration of technology into the classroom is having on student achievement. For technology to be considered educational technology, the technology has to improve student achievement when compared to the same material being taught without technology (Mihalca & Miclea, 2007). This is paramount as improving student achievement is the key reason school administrators are encouraging teachers to integrate technology (Lowther et al., 2008). The teachers who do not feel adequately trained may be committing the same amount of time as the adequately trained teachers, but that does not mean they are integrating the technology at an equal level of effectiveness (Guzey & Roehrig, 2009; Lim & Khine, 2006). The data for the third question concerning the correlation between the teachers satisfaction with their training and the time they believed was necessary to maximize their integration of technology reached the desired power level but the differences were also not statistically significant. The data showed that there was no significant difference in the amount of time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology into their classroom on the bases of the level of satisfaction they had with the training they received. This research study did not include any data collection that could help explain this result. When comparing the results for research question three to the literature review, the results are similar to the findings for research question two. Hence, the results contradict previous research that participating professional development on

Ill integrating technology saves the teacher time when it comes to integrating technology into their classroom (Berlin & White, 2012; Marino & Beecher, 2010). In addition, it is common for teachers to believe professional development to be worthless (HarveyWoodall, 2009). One possibility is that teachers can only estimate the time required to integrate tasks that they know about and teachers that are better trained may do more complex integrations of technology that require more planning time than simple integrations of technology (Guzey & Roehrig, 2009; Lim & Khine, 2006). Overall, this research study answered some questions and provided some interesting results, which showed that teachers know they are not receiving the most out of their technology integration which agrees with research showing that the integration of technology has not created an improvement in student achievement (Norris & Soloway, 2012). The results of this research study concur with previous research the found time to be a key barrier to the integration of educational technology into the classroom (Grunwald et al., 2010; Bull et al., 2008). In addition, district administrators may find having a numeric representation of how much time teachers think is required to maximize their technology integration helpful. This research also determined areas for future research. The first area for future research would be to determine if there is a correlation between the time teachers spend preparing to integrate technology and student achievement. The second area for future research would be to investigate if there is a correlation between the amount of time a teacher spends preparing to integrate technology and the effectiveness the technology integration has on student achievement on standardized tests, since student achievement is the key reason for integrating technology (Lowther et al., 2008). Lastly, with time being a key barrier (Grunwald et al.,

112 2010; Bull et al., 2008), the third area for future research would be to investigate an ideal amount of time for teachers to spend preparing to integrate technology in their classrooms. This ideal time would be a range of minutes that the teacher would spend that would provide the greatest positive impact on student achievement.

113

References Adcock, P. K. (2008). Evolution of teaching and learning through technology. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 74(4), 37-41. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2011). Exploring the potential of the will, skill, tool model in ghana: Predicting prospective and practicing teachers use of technology. Computers & Education, 91-100. Retrieved from utwente.academia.edu/ DouglasAgyeiAgyei/Papers/317543/Exploring_the_potential_of_the_Will_Skill_ Tool_model_in_Ghana_Predicting_prospective_and_practicing_teachers_use_of_ technology Al-Bataineh, A., Anderson, S., Toledo, C., & Wellinski, S. (2008). A study of technology integration in the classroom. International Journal o f Instructional Media, 35(4), 381. Retrieved from go.galegroup.com.proxy 1.ncu.edu/ps/i.do?&id=GALE| A273359028&v=2.1 &u=pres 1571 &it=r&p=AONE&s w=w Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review of synthesis of the literature. Journal o f Special Education Technology. 21(2). Retrieved from www.cuip.net/~cac/nlu/tie536fall09/ AT_a%20review%20by%20Alper%20and%20Raharinirina.pdf Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. C. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29-40. Retrieved from www.uh.cu/static/documents/RDA/ Design-Based%20Research%20Edul%20Tech.pdf An, Y., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, leamer-centered classrooms: K-12 teachers beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal o f Digital Learning in Teacher Education. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Anderson, A. (2010). Cant we all get along? International Society fo r Technology in Education, 37(4), 21-23. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ867964) Anonymous. (2006). Teachers wary about using information technology in the classroom. (2006). Education & Training, 48( 1), 60. Retrieved from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 237072204). Anonymous. (2008). Results of a survey of American teachers and support professionals on technology in public schools and classrooms. National Education Association. D Retrieved from www.edutopia.org/pdfs/NEA-Access,Adequacy, andEquity inEdTech. pdf Anonymous (2009). Smart board project. Legacy Heritage. Retrieved from http://elegacyheritage.org/sbp/?f=faqs

114 Ash, K., (2010). Schools test e-readers devices with dyslexic students. Education Week Retrieved from www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2010/10/20/01dyslexia.h04. html Atteberry, A., (2011). Defining school value added: Do schools that appear strong on one measure appear strong on another? Society fo r Research on Educational Effectiveness (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED518222) Barack, L. (2011). The kindles are coming: Ereaders and tablets are springing up in schools-and librarians are leading the way. School Library Journal. Retrieved from www.libraryjoumal.com/slj/home/889110-312/the_kindles are _coming.html.csp Battaglino, T., Haldeman, M., & Laurans, E. (2012). The costs of online learning.. Thomas B. Fordham Institute (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED528948) Beaidin, L., & Hadden, C. (2005). Technology and pedagogy: Building technopedagogical skills in preservie teachers. Innovate. 2(2) Retrieved from www. innovateonline. info/pdf/vol2_issue2/T echnology_and_PedagogyBuilding_Techno-Pedagogical_Skills_in_Preservice_Teachers.pdf Bebell, D., & ODwyer, L. (2010). Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. The Journal o f Technology, Learning, and Assessment. 9(1) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ873675) Bebell, D., ODwyer, L., Russell, M., & Hoffman, T. (2007). Technology and assessment study collaborative: Boston College. Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association. www.bc.edu/research/intasc/PDF/ Methodological %20challenges_v2.2. pdf Behavioral Change Models. (2013). Boston University School of Health. Retrieved from http://sph.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/SB721-Models/SB721-Models4.html Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The digital natives debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal o f Educational Technology 39 (5) 775786. Retrieved from kimhuett.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/The-digital-nativesdebate-A-critical-review-of-the-evidence.pdf Berlin, D., & White, A. (2012). A longitudinal look at attitudes and perceptions related to the integration of mathematics, science, and technology education. School Science and Mathematics. 112(1). 20-30 Retrieved from EBSCO/w.v/. Bigimlas, K., (2009). Barriers to the successful integration of ICT in teaching and learning environments: A Review of Literature. Eurasia Journal o f Mathematics, Science & Technology Integration. 5(3) 235-245 Retrieved from http://www.ejmste.com/v5n3/EURASLA_v5n3_Bingimlas.pdf

115

Blom, M. (2012, January 1). The promise of technology in the classroom. The Baltimore Sun, Retrieved from articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-01-01/news/bs-ed-teachingtechnology-20120101_1 _teachers-technology-comprehension-and-application Bommel, P., Hoppenbrouwers, S., Overbeek, S., Proper, E., & Baris, J. (2010). The practice o f enterprise modeling. Retrieved from books.google.com/books?id=9L7SwbBusSEC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=how+ many+content+experts+instrument&source=bl&ots=rCpxwow4p&sig=ncIj5LNjdTppCkRI2TIL7rHI458&hl=en&ei=9F20Tta6BNL2ggedpti 5B A&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum= 1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=sn ippet&q=three&f=false Bose, S. (2010). Enabling secondary level teachers to integrate technology through ICT integrated instructional systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED511722) Boser, U. (2013). Are schools getting a big enough bang for their education technology buck? Center fo r American Progress. Retrieved from hwww.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2013/06/14/66485/areschools-getting-a-big-enough-bang-for-their-education-technology-buck/ Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration and beliefs. Journal o f Research on Technology in Education,39(1), 22-43. Retrieved from www.mrgibbs.com/tu/research/articles/Longterm_tech_training_partial_success.p df Bull, G., Thompon, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., & Lee, J. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2). Retrieved from citejoumal.org/vol8/iss2/editorial/articlel.cfm Bums, M. (2010). How to help teachers use technology in the classroom. eLearning Magazine. Retrieved from www.eleammag.org/subpage.cfm?section= best_practices&article=71-1 Chen, J., & Chang, C. (2006). Testing the whole teacher approach to professional development: A study of enhancing early childhood teachers technology proficiency. Early Childhood Research & Practice. Retrieved from www.thefreelibrary.com/Testing+the+whole+teacher+approach+to+professional+ development%3a+a...-a0153052506 Chen, W., Tan, A., Len, C. (2012). Extrinsic and intrinsic barriers in the use of ICT in teaching: A comparative case study in Singapore. Ascilite. 191-196 Retrieved

116 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/wellington 12/2012/images/ custom/chen,_wenli_-_extrinsic.pdf Carr-Chellman, A. (2006). Desperate technologist: critical issues in e-leaming and implications for high education. Journal o f Thought. Retrieved from www.thefreelibrary.com/Desperate+technologists%3a+critical+issues+in+eleaming+and. ..-a0142788515 Chambers, J. (2007). 21st-century Mindset. Community College Journal. 11. Retrieved from web.ebscohost.com.proxyl.ncu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid =7953c710-10b4-4805-8367-4fllba0e54fc%40sessionmgrll2&vid=2&hid=125 Chandler, D. (2010). Writing your dissertation: Some guidelines for university students. Retrieved from www.aber.ac.uk/media/Modules/dissertation.html Chen, B. (2009). Barriers to adoption of technology-mediated distance education in higher-education institutions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 10(4) 333. Retrieved from go.galegroup.com.proxy 1.ncu.edu/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id= GALE%7CA234310639&v=2.1&u=pres 157 l&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCou nt=l Cheung, A. & Slavin, R. (2011). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in k-12 classrooms: A meta analysis. Best Evidence Encyclopeida (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED527573) Choudhury, A. (2010). Cronbach's Alpha. Retrieved from www.experimentresources.com/cronbachs-alpha.html Chubb, J. (2012). Overcoming the governance challenge in K-12 online learning. Creating sound policy for digital learning. A working paper series from the Thomas b. Fordham institute. Thomas B. Fordham Institute (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED530433) Clarke, R. (2012). A primer in diffusion of innovations theory. Retrieved from http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/InnDiff.html Coffey, H. (N.D.). Summative assessment. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Retrieved from http://www.leamnc.org/lp/pages/5233 Coladarci, T., Cobb, C., Minium, E., & Clarke,R. (2007). Fundamentals o f statistical reasoning in education (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Costley, K. (2012). Who are todays students in a diverse society? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED528453)

117 Cowan, B. (2011). Digital native arent necessarily digital learners. Chronicle o f Higher Education, 34-35. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Cuban, L. (2003). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2008). Creating excellent and equitable schools. Educational Leadership, 65(8), 14-21. Davies, C. (2011). Changing Academics, Changing Curriculum: How Technology Enhanced Curriculum Design can Deliver Strategic Change. Proceedings Of The European Conference On E-Learning, 153-156. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Delisio, E., (2011). Technology integration, assessment, and no child left behind. Education World. Retrieved from www.educationworld.com/a_tech/techl71. shtml Demirci, A. (2008). Evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of GIS-based applications in secondary school geography lessons. American Journal o f Applied Science. Retrieved from www.thefreelibrary.com/Evaluating+ the+implementation+and+effectiveness+of+GIS-based...-a0169655913 Diffusion of Innovation Theory. (2013). University of Twente. Retrieved from http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/ Communication%20and%20Information%20Technology/Diffusion_of_Innovatio ns_Theory.doc/ Digital teaching aids make math fun. (2010). Information society and media DG. Retrieved from cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.cfm?section=news& tpl=article&ID=91159 Donnell R., (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended learning problem-based learning. Computers & Education, 42(2), 350-359 Retrieved from http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=ltcart&seiredir=l&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct %3Dj%26q%3Dharmonizing%2520technology%2520with%2520interaction%25 20in%2520blended%25201eaming%2520problembased%25201eaming.%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D5%26ved%3D0CG8QFjAE %26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Farrow.dit.ie%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.c gi%253Farticle%253D1008%2526context%253Dltcart%26ei%3DEfKrT7CJ4HX6gGJ9cAp%26usg%3DAFQjCNElStsjkzRj6BX30CrFmkweFBWWw#search=%22harmonizing%20technology%20interaction%20ble nded%201eaming%20problem-based%201eaming.%22 Donovan, L., Hartley, K., & Strudler N. (2007). Teacher concerns during initial implementation of a one-to-one laptop initiative at middle school level. Journal

118 o f Research on Technology Education, 39(3). 263-286 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ768880) Edens, K. M. (2008). The interaction of pedagogical approach, gender, self-regulation, and goal orientation using student response system technology. Journal o f Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 161+. Retrieved from go.galegroup.com.proxyl.ncu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA190379727&v=2.1&u =pres 1571 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w Educational Technology in Teacher Education Programs for Initial Licensure. (2007, Dec 05). US Fed News Service, Including US State News, pp. n/a. Retrieved from search.proquest.com/docview/468717079?accountid=28180 Edutpia (2008). Why is teacher development important?: Because students deserve the best. Eductopia. Retrieved from www.edutopia.org/teacher-developmentintroduction Efe, R. (2011). Science Student Teachers and Educational Technology: Experience, Intentions, and Value. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 228-240. Retrieved from www.ifets.info/joumals/14_l/20.pdf Eldaka, S. (2012) Introduction and attributes of meaningful learning using technology. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED529713) eSchool News. (2010, April 9). Survey: School budget cuts even worse next year. Retrieved from www.eschoolnews.com/2010/04/09/survey-school-budget-cutseven-worse-next-year eSchool News. (2010, June 29). Research dispels common ed-tech myths. Retrieved from www.eschoolnews.com/2010/06/29/research-dispels-common-ed-techmyths/ eSchool News. (2010, September 23). Groups urge updates to teacher preparation programs Retrieved from www.eschoolnews.com/2010/09/23/groups-urgeupdates-to-teacher-preparation-programs Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25-39, Retrieved from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 19511442). Ertmer, P. & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2009). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, beliefs, and culture intersect. Retrieved from www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/AERA09_Ertmer_Leftwich.pdf Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich A., & York, C. (2006). Exemplary technology-using teachers: Perception of factors influencing success, Journal of Computers in

119 Teacher Education 23(2), p55-61 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ876918) Fan, T. (2012). Enhancing learning with the use of assistive technology for children on the autism spectrum. Dominican University of California 61 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED531866) Federal Communications Commission (2010). Current state of the broadband ecosystem. Retrieved from http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-planchapter-3-current-state-of-the-broadband-ecosystem.pdf Foster, A. (2007). Immersive Education submerges students in online worlds made for learning. The Chronicle o f Higher Education 54(17). Retrieved from go.galegroup.com.proxyl.ncu.edu/ps/i.do?&id=GALE|A172560561&v=2.1&u=p res 1571 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w Franklin, C. (2007). Factors that influence elementary teachers use of computers. Journal o f Technology & Teacher Education, 15(2), 267-293. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. Franz, D., & Hopper, P. (2007). Technology in mathematics: Issues in educating teacher candidates for rural math classrooms. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 3. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ835507) Fried, C. (2006). In-class laptop use and its effect on student learning, Winona State University Retrieved from www.mcla.edu/Academics/uploads/textWidget/ 3424.00018/documents/laptop_use_in_the_classroom.pdf Garson, G. (2011). Scales and standard measures. Retrieved from faculty.chass.ncsu.edu /garson/PA765/standard.htm Glass, G. V & Weiner, K.G. (2011). Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain Private Ventures in Need o f Public Regulation. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from nepc.colorado.edu/publication/online-k-12schooling. Gomez Martinez, S. (2010). Using web resources to support teachers and students with the teaching and practice of listening comprehension. Encuentro, (19) 20-31. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED525731) Goodin, L. (2012). Incorporating technology into the instruction of social studies. Sait Xavier University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED531350)

120 Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010). Teachers use o f educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009, First look. National Center for Educational Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED509514) Gray, L., & Tice, P. (2010). Teachers use of educational technology in U.S. public schools: 2009. National Center fo r Educational Statistics. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf Greenhow, C., Kim, S., & Walker, J. (2009). Millennial learners and net savvy teens? Examining internet use among low-income students. Journal o f Computing in Teacher Education. 26(2). 63. Retrieved from go.galegroup.com.proxyl. ncu.edu/ps/i.do?&id=GALE|A215514785&v=2.1&u=pres 1571 &it=r&p=AONE& sw=w Gregoire, M., & Targia, J. (2006). Technology for technology's sake. Phi Delta Kappan 88(3), 257. Retrieved from go.galegroup.com.proxyl.ncu.edu/ ps/i.do?&id =GALE| A 154514942&v=2.1&u=pres 1571 &it=r&p=PROF&sw=w Grunwald and Associates. (2010). Educators, technology and 21st century skills: Dispelling five myths. Retrieved from Walden University, Richard W. Riley College of Education website. Retrieved from www.WaldenU.edu/fivemyths Guzey, S. S., & Roehrig, G. H. (2009). Teaching science with technology: Case studies of science teachers development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1). Retrieved from www.citejoumal.org/vol9/issl/sc Halverson, R., Prichett, R., & Watson, W. (2007). Formative feedback systems and the new instructional leadership. Wisconsin Center fo r Educational Research. Retrieved from www.wcer.wisc.edu/Publications/workingPapers/Working _Paper_No_2007_03.swf Halverson, R. & Smith, A. (2010). How new technologies have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in schools. Journal o f Computing in Teacher Education, 26 (2), 49-54. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ907118) Ham, V. (2010). Participant-directed evaluation: Using teachers own inquires to evaluate professional development in technology integration. Journal o f Digital Learning Teacher. 27(1), 22-29. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ898520) Hancock, R., Knezek, G. & Christensen, R. (2003). The Expanded Will, Skill, Tool M odel: A Step toward Developing Technology Tools That Work. In D. Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings o f World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2003. Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from www.editlib.org.proxy 1.ncu.edu/p/11137.

121 Hannum, W., Irvin, M., Banks, J., & Farmer, T. (2009). Distance education use in rural schools. Journal o f Research in Rural Education, 24(3). Retrieved from jrre.psu.edu/articles/24-3.pdf Harvey-Woodall, A. (2009). Integrating technology into the classroom: How does it impact student achievement? Jackson State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED505984) Harris, J. (2005). Our agenda for technology integration: It's time to choose. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 5(2). retrieved from www.citejoumal.org/vol5/iss2/editorial/articlel.cfm Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum based technology integration reframed. Journal o f Research on Technology in Education. 41(4), 393-416. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ844273) Harvey-Woodall, A. (2009) Integrating technology into the classroom: How does it impact student achievement? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED505984) Heller, J., Curtis, D Jaffe, R. & Verboncoeur, C. (2005). The impact of handheld graphing calculator use on student achievement in algebra I. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED493688) Hess, F. (2011). Quality control in k-12 digital learning: Three (imperfect) approaches, creating healthy policy for digital learning. Thomas B Fordham Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED527019) Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252. Retrieved from courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i290-pm4e/fl0/files/Hew-Bmsh.pdf Hew, K., & Hara, N. (2007). Empirical study of motivators and barriers of teacher online knowledge sharing. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(6), 573-595. doi: 10.1007/s 11423-007-9049-2 Holden, H. & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers' technology acceptance. Journal o f Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343-367. Retrieved from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 870391522). Hora, M., & Holen, J. (2012). Exploring faculty decision-making processes for using instructional technology in the classroom. University of Wisconsin. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED530736)

122

Howard, P. (2011). So many devices, so little use. The Journal, 38(6), 42-44. Retrieved from www.thejoumal.com/articles/2011/06/17/so-many-devices-so-little-use.aspx Hubbell, E. (2010). Using McRELs knowledge taxonomy for ed tech professional development. Learning and Leading with Technology. 37{8), 20-23. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ886392) Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2010). A national survey of barriers to integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction. Fifty Ninth Yearbook o f the National Reading Conference. National Reading Conference. Milwaukee, WI. Retrieved from iastate.academia.edu/AmyHutchison/Papers/ 384319/A_N ational_S urvey_of_B arriers_to_Integrating_Information_and_Comm unication_Technologies_into_Literacy_Instruction Ioannou, A., & Artino, R. (2010). Using a classroom response system to support active learning in an educational psychology course: A case study. International Journal o f Instructional Media. 37(3). Retrieved from vnweb.hwwilsonweb .com.proxyl .ncu.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67bl790e5512213a03 89c9f640506bdac6cca3558152346f00ab603c63afffc7575 lbfa4&fmt=H Isman, A., Yaratan, H., & Caner, H. (2007). How technology is integrated into science education in a developing country: North Cyprus case. Turkish Online Journal o f Educational Technology. 6(3) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED499657) Isseks, M. (2011). How Powerpoint is killing education. Teaching Screenagers, 68(5), 74-76. ASCD Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Jasinski, M. (2007). Innovate and integrate: embedding innovative practice. Department of Education Science and Training, Canberra. Retrieved from innovateandintegrate.flexibleleaming.net.au/docs/Innovate_and_Integrate_Final_ 26Jun07.pdf Jobe, H. (2011). Classroom for the future overview. Pennsylvania Department of Education. Retrieved from www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/ classrooms_for_the_future/89 ll/overview background,_purposes___outcomes/ 536123#DA_55620 Jones, A., & Bissell, C. (2011). The social construction of educational technology through the use of authentic software tools. Research in Learning Technology.

123 19(3), 285-297. Retrieved from researchinleamingtechnology.net/index.php/ rlt/article/view/17116/19131 Jwayyed, S., Stiffer, K., Wilber, S., Southern, A., Weigand, J., Bare, R., & Gerson, L. (2011). Technology assisted education in graduate medical education: A review of literature. International Journal o f Emergency Medicine 4(51). Retrieved from www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3162483/pdf/1865-1380-451 .pdf?tool=pmcentrez Karchmer-Klein, R. (2007). Reexamining the practicum placement: How to leverage technology to prepare preservice teachers for the demands of the 21st century. Journal o f Computing in Teacher Education 23(4). 121-129. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ842731) Kinchen, R. (2012, January 1). Death of the textbook; As pupils who shun print happily read words on a screen, Rosie Kinchen asks if it's time to bin books. Sunday Times [London, England], p. 10. Retrieved from go.galegroup.com.proxyl .ncu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA276089669&v=2.1&u=presl571&it=r&p=AON E&sw=w Kolikant, Y. B. (2010). Digital natives, better learners? Students beliefs about how the Internet influenced their ability to learn. Computers in Human Behavior, 26. p: 1384-1391. Retrieved from http:// cyber.law.harvard.edu/communia2010/sites/ communia2010/images/Kolikant_2010_Digital_Natives_Better_Leamers.pdf Kramer, B., Walker, A., & Brill J. (2007). The underutilization of information and communication technology-assisted collaborative project-based learning among international educations: A delphi study. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Kotrlik, J., & Redmann, D. (2009). Technology adoption for use in instruction by secondary technology education teachers. Journal o f Technology Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ914276) Lateh, H., & Muniandy, V. (2011). Technology integrated teaching in Malaysian schools: GIS, a SWOT analysis. World Journal on Educational Technology. 3(2), 64-74. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Ling, L., & Moi, C. (2007). Professional students technology readiness, prior computing experience and acceptance of an e-leaming system. Malayasian Accounting Review. 6 (1), 85-100. Retrieved from eprints.ptar.uitm.edu.my/285/l/Pages_ from Vol.6_No._l-_page_85_to_100.pdf Lesisko, .L, Wright, R., & OHem, B. (2010). Technology integration: A best practice perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED508318)

124

Lew, L. (2010). The use of constructivist teaching practices by four new secondary school science teachers: A comparison of new teachers and experienced constructivist teachers. Science Educator 19(2), 10-21. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ906186) Liang, P. (2006). How do teachers integrate information technology into the early childhood curriculum: The realities, challenges, and roles teachers play in Taiwan. Retrieved from www.editlib.org/p/24100 Lim, C., & Khine, M., (2006). Managing teachers barriers to ICT integration. Journal o f Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 97-125 retrieved from ied.academia.edu/CherPingLim/Papers/93078/Lim_C._P._and_Khine_M._S._200 6_._Managing_teachers_barriers_to_ICT_integration_in_Singapore_schools._Jou mal_of_T echnology_and_T eacher_Education_ 14_ 1_97-125 Lin, C & Lu, M. (2010). The study of teachers' task values and self-efficacy on their commitment and effectiveness for technology-instruction integration. US-China Education, 7(5), 1-11. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED511250) Lippincott, B., Matulich, E., & Squires, K. (2006). To learn or not to learn: The effect of educational technology on learning in accounting courses. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 3(12) Retrieved from http://joumals.cluteonline.com/index. php/TLC/article/view/1649/1629 Liu, Y. (2005) Impact of online instruction on teachers learning and attitudes toward technology integration. Turkish Online Journal o f Distance Education, 6(4). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED494757) Lu, R., & Overbaugh, R. (2008). The impact of a federally funded grant on a professional development program: teachers' stages of concern toward technology integration. Journal o f Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 45+. Retrieved from go.galegroup.com.proxyl.ncu.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA190890251&v=2.1&u =pres 1571 &it=r&p=PROF&s w=w Luo, H., (2011). Qualitative research on educational technology philosophies, methods and change. International Journal o f Education 3(2). Retrieved from www.macrothink.org/joumal/index.php/ije/article/view/857/827 Lowther, D., Inan, F., Strahl, J., & Ross, S. (2008). Does technology integration work when key barriers are removed?. Educational Media International, 45(3), 195213. doi: 10.1080/09523980802284317 Malmgreen, C. (2005). Validating research instrument. National Nursing Staff Development Organization. Retrieved from https://www.nnsdo.org/ dmdocuments/ValidatingResearchlnstruments.pdf

125

Manzo, K. (2010). Whiteboards impact on teaching seen as uneven. Education Week. 3(2). Retrieved from www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2010/01/08/02whiteboards .h03.html Marino, M. T., & Beecher, C. C. (2010). Conceptualizing rti in 21st-century secondary science classrooms: Video games' potential to provide tiered support and progress monitoring for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(4). 299-311. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Marwan. A., & Sweeney, T. (2010). Teachers' perceptions of educational technology integration in an Indonesian polytechnic. Asia Pacific Journal O f Education. 30(4), 463-476. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2010.519554* Masood, M. (2004). A ten year analysis: Trends in traditional educational technology literature, Malaysian Online Journal o f Educational Technology, 12. Retrieved from pppjj.usm.my/mojit/articles/pdf/1204/ A%20Ten%20Year%20Analysis.pdf Mayer, R., & Moreno, R. (n.d.). A cognitive theory of multimedia learning: Implications for design principals. University of California. Retrieved from http://www_unm. edu/~moreno/PDFS/chi.pdf McCoog, I. (2008). 21st century teaching and learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED502607) McManis, L., & Gunnewig, S. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with early learns. Technology and Young Children. Retrieved from www.naeyc.org/yc/files/yc/file/201205/McManis_YC0512.pdf McNabb, D. (2010). Research methods fo r political science. M. E. Sharpe, Inc. ISBN 978-0-7656-2313-3 Means, B., Toyama, Y Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2. ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf Mehta, J. (2013, April 12). Teachers: Will we ever learn? New York Times. Retired from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/opinion/teachers-will-we-everleam.html? pagewanted=all&_r=0 Merrill, C., Custer, R., Daugherty, J., Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2008). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. Journal o f Technology Education. 20(1), 48-64. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ898823)

126 Meyer, L. (2011). Survey finds strong support for educational technology. Campus Technology. Retrieved from www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/ GENERAL/CMPSTECH/C110314M.pdf Mierzejewski, C. (2010). The impact of professional development on technology integration in high school classrooms, Retrieved from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 1962589301). Mihalca, L., & Miclea, M. (2007). Current trends in educational technology research. Cognition, Brian, Behavior. 11, 115-129. Retrieved from www.cognitrom.ro/ files/documente/studii/XI_l_b-pdf Milan, M. (2008, June). How to enhance classes by using pcs, the Internet, and mobile phones. Paper presented at the International Conference on Contemporary Intentions in Education. Ohrid Macedonia CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED520297) Ming, T., Murugaiah, P., Wah, L., Azman, H., Yean, T., & Sim, L. (2010). Grappling with technology: A case of supporting Malaysian smart school teachers professional development. Australasian Journal o f Educational Technology, 26(3), 400-416. Retrieved from www.tree.com.my/@api/deki/files/1030/ =R7_Tang_eCPD%252bCoP_Grappling_with_technology_(2).pdf Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J & Kereluik, K. (2009). The song remains the same: Looking back to the future of educational technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 48-53. Retrieved from search.proquest.com/docview/223120073?accountid=28180 Moeller, B., & Reitzes, T. (2011). Integrating technology with student-centered learning. A report to the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, Quincy, MA. Retrieved from www.nmefoundation.org/getmedia/befa9751-d8ad-47e9-949d-bd649f7c0044/ Integrating-Technology-with-Student-Centered-Leaming?ext=.pdf Mundy, M., Kupczynski, L., & Kee, R. (2012). Teachers perceptions of technology use in schools. Sage Open. Retrieved http://sgo.sagepub.eom/content/2/l/ 2158244012440813.full.pdf+html from: Neill, J. (2007). Qualitative versus quantitative research: Key points in a classic debate, retrieved from wilderdom.com/research/QualitativeVersusQuantitativeResearch. html Norrie, J. (2005, August 18). Kids click, but teachers dont computer, Sydney Morning Herald. 3 Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com.proxyl.ncu.edu/ hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&csi=8422&sr=lni%284P6W-4Y10-TXN5R1SS%29

127 Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2012). Stop the technology bashing. District Administration, 1, 75. Retrieved from www.districtadministration.com/article/going-mobile-stoptechnology-bashing Oberland, J., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2007, February). Envisioning the foundations o f technology integration in pre-service education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators, 33rd, San Diego, CA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED501246) Overbaugh, R., & Lu, R. (2009). The impact of federally funded grant on a professional development program: Teachers stages of concern toward technology integratioa Journal o f Computing in Teacher Education, 25(2), 45-55. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ834096) Palozzi, V., & Spradlin, T. (2006). Educational technology in indiana: Is it worth the investment? Center for evaluation and education policy, Indiana University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED491297) Panigrahi, M. (2011). Perceptions of teachers toward extensive utilization of information and communication technology. Turkish Online Journal o f Distance Education. 12(4), Retrieved from web.ebscohost.com.proxyl.ncu.edu /ehost/ pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=179elc97-ecdb-4cd7-bc3b-f635cdca03b% 40sessionmgrl l&vid=2&hid=13 Park, S., & Ertmer, P. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problembased learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology. 39(4), 631-643. Retrieved futurescholars.rutgers.edu/ FutureScholars/Images/Examining%20Barriers%20in%20Technology%20Enhanc ed%20Problem%20Based%20Leaming.pdf Passmore, C., Dobbie, A., Parchman, M., & Tysinger, J. (2002). Guidelines for constructing a survey. Family Medicine. 34(4), 281-286. Retrieved from http://www.stfm.org/fmhub/fm2002/apr02/rs 1.pdf Perrault, A. (2009). An exploratory study of biology teachers online information seeking practices. American Library Association 10. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ851701). Penn State University (2010). CFF / EETT evaluation project, College of Education. Retrieved from cff.psu.edu/Y4report.asp Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (ND). Secondary teachers use of technology for teaching mathematics, Australian Association fo r Research in Education. Retrieved from www.aare.edu.au/1Opap/2214PierceBall.pdf

128 Plass, J., Homer, B., & Hayward, E. (2009). Design factors for educationally effective animations and simulations. Journal o f Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 31-61. Retrieved from ProQuest Computing. (Document ID: 1895548121). Pullmann, J. (2011, December 23). Technology in schools: Not a one-time fix. States News Service. Retrieved from http://heartland.org/editorial/2011/12/23/ technology-schools-not-one-time-fix Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classroom. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from www.pewintemet.org/Reports/2013/Teachers-andtechnology/Summary-of-Findings.aspx Pusey, P., & Sadera, W. (2012). Cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity: Preservice teacher knowledge, preparedness, and the need for teacher education to make a difference. Townson University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ960154.pdf). Prensky, M. (2007). Changing Paradigms, Educational Technology, Retrieved from marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-ChangingParadigms-01-EdTech.pdf Project Red (2010). Digital education revolution, one-to-one computers in schools 2010 literature review. Retrieved from projectred.org/uploads/ lit_review 10_T rMbcLRPRT.pdf Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Duyck. J. (2010). Predicting secondary teachers acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 568575. Retrieved from ugent.academia.edu/JohanvanBraak/Papers/523514/ Predicting_secondary_school_teachers_acceptance_and_use_of_a_digital_leamin g_environment_a_cross-sectional_study Rashid, M., & Elahi, U. (2012). Use of educational technology in promoting distance education. Turkish Online Journal O f Distance Education (TOJDE), 13(1), 79-86. Retrieved from EBSCO host. Roden, K. (2011). Technology in education, University of West Alabama. 28 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED522014) Roward, C. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000090.pdf Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of rogers diffusion of innovation theory and educational technology-related studies based on rogers theory. Turkish Online

129 Journal o f Educational Technology(TOJDE), 5(2), 14-23 Retrieved from www.tojet.net/articles/v5i2/523.pdf Schrum, L., & Glasset, K. (2006). Technology integration in p-12 schools: challenges to implementation and impact of scientifically-based research. Journal o f Thought Retrieved from www.thefreelibrary.com/Technology+integration+in+P12+schools%3a+challenges+to+implementation...-a0142788512 Schmidt, S., Strachota, E., & Conceifao, S. (2006). The use o f online surveys to measure satisfaction in job training and workforce development. Columbus, OH: Academy of Human Resource Development Conference. Shapley, K. S., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010). Evaluating the implementation fidelity of technology immersion and its relationship with student achievement. The Journal o f Technology, Learning, and Assessment 9 (4). Retrieved from escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1204& context=jtla Siegle, D. (2011). Beginning steps in developing an attitude instrument. Retrieved from www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/instrument%20Reliability%20and%20Vali dity/instdeve.html Siemens, H. (2006). Distance education leadership: Employing the ETIPs model to access leadership practices in support of e-leaming. Retrieved from www.editlib.org.proxy 1.ncu.edu/f/23750 Silvemail, D., & Gritter, A. (2005). Maines middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute. Retrieved from usm.maine.edu/cepare//Impact_on_Student_Writing_Brief.pdf Singer, D. (2010). Educational technology: The need for better assessment strategies and for consideration of student learning styles, teaching styles, specific types of performance scores, and styles reflected in the individual technologies. Retrieved from Hnc.mit.edu/linc2010/proceedings/session8Singer.pdf Singh, C. (2006). Introduction to educational technology. Lotus Press New Delhi, India ISBN 81-8382-024-7 SMART. (2011). Products for education. Retrieved from www. smarttech.com/Home%20Page/Solutions/Education%20Solutions?WT.ac=HPBtn l_Ed_072610 Smith, G., & Throne, S. (2007). Differentiating instruction with technology in k-5 classrooms. International Society fo r Technology in Education. Retrieved from www.iste.org/images/excerpts/DIFFK5-excerpt.pdf

130 Smith, L. (2006). A catalyst for change for school improvement. Retrieved from www.guilfordeducationalliance.org/resources/docurnents/TWCFinalReport_000. pdf Spector, J., Merrill, M., Merrienboer, J., & Driscoll, M. (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoicates, NY. Retrieved from books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id= fUIGy 1RiJeoC&oi=fnd&pg=PPl &dq=educational+technology&ots=i52B vNpW Pe&sig=ixmemSDOV zB iPFp46cNNs6XD8rU#v=onepage&q=time&f=false Strachota, E Schmidt, S., & Conceicao, S. (2006, October). The development and validation of a survey instrument for the evaluation of instructional aids. Presented at The Midwest Research-To-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. University of Missouri-St. Louis. Retrieved from ebookbrowse.com/strachota-schmidt-conceicao-the-development-and-validationof-a-survey-instrument-pdf-d23978399 Sturgeon, J. (2010). A little money to spend on technology is nice, but Pennsylvania's education department has a bigger goal in mind for its $20 million largess. EdTech, Retrieved fromwww.edtechmag.com/kl2/issues/april-may2007/classrooms-for-the-future.html Su, B. (2009). Effective technology integration: Old topic, new thoughts. International Journal o f Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 5(2). Retrieved from ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/include/getdoc.php? id=43 82&article=620...pdf

Suhr, K. A., Hernandez, D. A., Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Laptops and Fourth-Grade Literacy: Assisting the Jump over the Fourth-Grade Slump. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(5), 42. Retrieved from escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article= 1207&context=jtla Tamin, R., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P., & Schmid, R. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A secondorder meta-analysis and validation study. Review o f Educational Research 81 (4). Retrieved from rer.sagepub.com/content/81/l/4.full.pdf+html Teo, T. (2011). Technology acceptance research in education. Research and Issues, 1-5. Retrieved from www.sensepublishers.com/files/9789460914874PR.pdf Topliker, D. (2007). Survey: Teachers overworked, lack sufficient time to plan, retrieved from www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/mar/12/survey_teachers _overworked_lack_'sufficient_time_pl/

131 Trochim, W. (2006) External validity: Research methods knowledge base. Retrieved from www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/extemal .php Tsavli, M. M., Fragakis, J. J., Kopsidas, S. S., Zisiadis, D. D., & Vavougios, D. D. (2009). Integrated ICT System for Teaching Physical Sciences in a Robotic Laboratory. International Journal O f Emerging Technologies In Learning, (S3), 67-73. doi: 10.399l/ijet.v4s3.1118 Underwood, J., & Dillon, G. (2011). Chasing dreams and recognizing realities: teachers responses to ICT. Teacher, Pedagogy and Education 20(3), 317-330. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Vermillion, J. Young, M., & Hannafin, R., (2007). An academic technology initiative for teacher preparation candidates: Implication for preservice teacher programs. Journal o f Computing in Teacher Education 23(3), 99-104. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ842729) Vrasidas, C. (2010). Why dont teachers adopt technology? A survey of teachers' use of ICT in the republic of Cyprus, eLeam Magazine. Retrieved from http://eleammag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1785590 Watson, R., Boudreau, M., York, P., Greiner, M., & Wynn, (2008). Opening the classroom. Journal o f Information Systems Education. Retrieved from www.thefreelibrary.com/Opening+the+classroom.-a0233828130 Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council. Retrieved from smleads.org/resources/publications/ pdf/nsdc_profdev_tech_report.pdf Wessa P., 2012. Cronbach alpha (vl.0.2) in Free Statistics Software (vl.l.23-r7). Office for Research Development and Education, Retrieved from http://www.wessa.net/ rwasp_cronbach. wasp/ Weston, M.E., & Bain, A. (2010). The End of Techno-Critique: The Naked Truth about 1:1 Laptop Initiatives and Educational Change. Journal o f Technology, Learning, and ssessment, 9(6). Retrieved from escholarship.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=l 193&context=jtla White, S. (2008). Digital Geography: Geospatial technologies in the social studies classroom. 169-176. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id= Nxa7YrIfVawC&pg=PA169&dq=Diffusion+of+Innovations+Theory&lr=&sourc e=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q=Diffusion%20of%20Innovations%20Theory &f=false

132 Willingham, D. (2010). Have technology and multitasking rewired how students learn. American Educator 34(2) 23-28 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ889151) Yoder, J. (2010). Diffusion of innovation. Burrell+Connect Retrieved from connect.burrellcolourimaging.com/?p=71 Zhao, Y., & Bryant, F. (2006). Can teacher integration alone lead to high levels of technology integration? A qualitative look at teachers technology integration after state mandated technology training. Electronic Journal fo r the Integration o f Technology in Education. 5, 53-62. Retrieved from ejite.isu.edu/Volume5/ Zhao.pdf

Appendixes

134 Appendix A: Survey/Interview Questions Internet Based Survey Questions Section I Did you complete the required CFF online training courses through Wilkes University? Yes or No Do you still have access to an interactive whiteboard and classroom set of laptops for your students? Yes or No Section II Approximately how many minutes per week do you currently spend preparing to integrate technology into your daily lessons? Include any time needed to learn how to use the technology. (Please indicate a specific number of minutes-not a range of minutes. Ex: 13 minutes, not 10-15 minutes.) _______ minute(s) Approximately how many minutes per week do you believe would need to be spent preparing to integrate technology to maximize technology integration into your lessons? Include any time needed to learn how to use the technology. (Please indicate a specific number of minutes-not a range of minutes. Ex: 13 minutes, not 10-15 minutes.) _______ minute(s) I feel adequately trained to implement and use technology in my classroom. Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Section III Discipline: All Academic Areas English Math Reading Science Social Studies Special Education Other (please specify)_____________________________________ Total Years Teaching Experience:

135

What is the highest degree you have achieved? Bachelors Masters EdS Other (please specify)__________

136 Appendix B: Survey/Interview Questions Data Analysis Internet Based Survey Questions Section I Did you complete the required CFF online training courses through Wilkes University? Yes or No Do you still have access to an interactive whiteboard and classroom set of laptops for your students? Yes or No Responses that answer no for either question in section I, were not used in this research.

Section II Approximately how many minutes per week do you currently spend preparing to integrate technology into your daily lessons? Include any time needed to learn how to use the technology. (Please indicate a specific number of minutes--not a range of minutes. Ex: 13 minutes, not 10-15 minutes.) _______ minute(s) Approximately how many minutes per week do you believe would need to be spent preparing to integrate technology to maximize technology integration into your lessons? Include any time needed to learn how to use the technology. (Please indicate a specific number of minutes-not a range of minutes. Ex: 13 minutes, not 10-15 minutes.) _______ minute(s) I feel adequately trained to implement and use technology in my classroom. Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

There was a mean calculated from the number of minutes teachers spent preparing to integrate technology. There was a mean calculated from the number of minutes teachers believed was required to maximize their technology integration. A /-test was used to help determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the two

137 means. If the probability calculated by the r-test was less than 0.05 then the difference between the two means was statically significant. Thus, teachers were not committing the time they believe is required to maximize their technology integration. An ANOVA test helped identify if there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers spend integrating technology based on the five levels of their perceived satisfaction of the training received. A second ANOVA test helped to identify if there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of time teachers believe is required to maximize their technology integration based on the five levels of their perceived satisfaction of the training received. Section III Discipline: All Academic Areas English Math Reading Science Social Studies Special Education Other (please specify)_____________________________________ Total Years Teaching Experience:______ What is the highest degree you have achieved? Bachelors Masters EdS Other (please specify)_____________________________ Data collected in section III allowed the research to provide an overview of the teachers participating in the research, plus provide insight into the differences these demographic have on the participants in this study.

138 Appendix C: Sample email sent to district contacts that were to distribute the survey information to their high school teachers. Dear Mr. Smith: On September 24th, Michael Ognosky gave me permission to send you an email to forward to your high school teachers. The purpose of this is to assist on my research into the integration of technology. I will email you a message very shortly that you can forward to your teachers. Thanks for your cooperation. Troy Stevens Technology Coordinator Shippensburg Area School District (717) 530-2846 www.shipkl2.org

139 Appendix D: Email sent to high school teachers inviting them to participate

Dear High School Teacher: On September 24th, Michael Ognosky gave me permission to ask the teachers in your school to help with my doctoral research. The title of my research is: The Impact of Subject and Training on the Time Required to Implement Technology in the Classroom. I would appreciate your assistance in answering eight question on the amount of time it takes to integrate technology into the classroom. The survey should take less than 5 minutes to complete. This is voluntary and I will not share your individual responses. As a thank you for participating, everyone that completes the survey may sign up for a drawing. There will be seven $10 gift cards for either Wal-Mart or Amazon given away. You may choose not to complete the survey at any time. To give you an idea of the questions that are on the survey, the following three questions are the foundation of my research and the questions that will take the longest to answer. The other five questions reference demographic information about you and your participation in the CFF grant. 1. Approximately how many minutes per week do you currently spend preparing to integrate technology into your daily lessons? Include any time needed to learn how to use the technology. 2. Approximately how many minutes per week do you believe would need to be spent preparing to integrate technology to maximize technology integration into your lessons? Include any time needed to learn how to use the technology. 3. I feel adequately trained to implement and use technology in my classroom. Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree To complete the survey, click on this link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dGpVaDQwTilmS2c

zdXhSNUg5dWRnOGc6MQ

Thanks, Troy Stevens Technology Coordinator Shippensburg Area School District (717) 530-2846 www.shipkl2.org

140 Appendix E: Email seeking pilot test participants Kristin Carroll gave me permission to ask the high school teachers that participated in the CFF grant to help with my doctoral research. The title of my research is: The Impact of Subject and Training on the Time Required to Implement Technology in the Classroom. I would appreciate your assistance in answering eight question on the amount of time it takes to integrate technology into the classroom. The survey should take less than 5 minutes to complete. This is voluntary and I will not share your individual responses. As a thank you for participating, everyone that completes the survey may sign up for a drawing. There will be seven $10 gift cards for either Wal-Mart or Amazon given away at the end of my research. You may choose not to complete the survey at any time. To give you an idea of the questions that are on the survey, the following three questions are the foundation of my research and the questions that will take the longest to answer. The other five questions reference demographic information about you and your participation in the CFF grant. 1. Approximately how many minutes per week do you currently spend preparing to integrate technology into your daily lessons? Include any time needed to learn the how to use the technology. 2. Approximately how many minutes per week do believe would need to be spent preparing to integrate technology to maximize technology integration into your lessons? Include any time needed to learn the how to use the technology. 3. I feel adequately trained to implement and use technology in my classroom. Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree As required by the dissertation board at NCU, I will be asking you to take the survey again in early January to insure the survey yields consistent responses. To complete the survey, click on this link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dGpVaDQwT i 1mS2czdXhSNUg5dWRnOGc6MQ Thanks for your cooperation.

Troy Stevens

Technology Coordinator Shippensburg Area School District (717) 530-2846 www.shipkl2.org

142 Appendix F: Second email seeking pilot test participants This is the follow up to the email I sent before Christmas. If you completed the survey, I really appreciate it. To help prove the reliability of the survey, I need everyone that took it previously to take it again, you may enter the drawing a second time. If you did not take it before, you may still take survey. I need 210 teachers that participated in the CFF grant from around the state to complete the survey before I can complete my dissertation. I can match up the seven that took it the first time by department and years of experience to prove the reliability of the survey. To complete the survey, click on this link: https ://docs.google. com/spreadsheet/viewform?fromEmail=true&formkey=dGp VaDQ wT i 1mS2czdXhSNUg5dWRnOGc6MQ Thanks for your assistance. Troy Stevens Technology Coordinator Shippensburg Area School District (717) 530-2846 www.shipkl2.org