TeacherTPACKdevelopmentandperceptionsoftechnologyacceptance:

Acomparisonbetweenonlineandfacetofaceprofessionaldevelopmentwithteacherpresented
ICTintegrationdilemmasasthefocus

CEP991OnlineLearningandTeaching
ResearchProposal

November2014
HollyMarich

MichiganStateUniversityEPETPh.D.HybridProgram


1.Introduction
TeachingthroughtheintegrationofInformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICT)
hasbecomeapriorityamongUnitedStatesschools.Forexample,the2010NationalEducation
TechnologyPlancallsforatransformationinteachingandlearningrequiringteachersshiftto
connectedteachingthroughtheuseofICT(p.10).Additionally,nationalteacher
organizationshaveindicatedanemphasisinICTintegrationthroughtheestablishmentof
NationalEducationTechnologyStandards(NETS)forstudents,teachers,administrators,
coaches,andcomputerscienceeducatorsbytheInternationalSocietyforTechnologyin
Education(ISTE).Also,thecollaborativeworkoftheNationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish
(NCTE)andtheInternationalReadingAssociation(IRA)incomposingadefinitionofwhatit
meanstobeliterateinthe21stcentury(2008)illustratesthenationalimportanceoftechnology
integrationineducation.Furthermore,recenteducationalliteraturehasfocusedonthe
importanceofICTintegrationinschoolstobetterpreparestudentsfortheneedsoftodays
digitalsociety(DarlingHammond,2010Prensky,2001Thomas&Brown,2011Wagner,
2010).Interestinglyenough,PeggyErtmerwrotein1999aboutthelackoftechnology
integrationinschools.Fifteenyearslater,thediscussioncontinuesaroundhowtoincrease
teacheracceptanceofICTintegrationinourNationsschools.Thus,exploringnewavenuesfor
supportingteacherdevelopmentofICTintegrationmakessense.
Theproposedstudywillcomparebothknowledgedevelopmentandteacheracceptance
ofICTintegrationbetweenafacetofacecommunityofpracticeandanonlinecommunityof
practice.Theprofessionaldevelopmentexperienceproposedisbasedonthefollowingpremise:
Increasedknowledgethroughteacherprofessionaldevelopmentisakeyfactorinsupporting

teachersacceptanceofICTintegration(Breit,Dede,Ketelhut,McCloskey&Whitehouse,2009
Ertmer,1999Ertmer&Ottenbreit,2010Mishra&Koehler,2006Teo,2011).Increased
knowledgealoneisinsufficient(Straub,2009).Selfefficacy(Bandura,1977)isalsoakey
variableforteachingwithtechnology(Ertmeretal.,2010).ACommunityofPractice(CoP)has
thepotentialtobeaspaceforknowledgedevelopmentandefficaciousexperiences(Wenger,
1998).
2.TheoryandLiteratureReview
Knowledge,CommunityofPractice,andSelfEfficacyarekeytotechnologyacceptance.
Thenextsectionwilldetailaspecifictypeofknowledgenecessaryforeffectivetechnology
integration.Followingtheknowledgesectionwillbeanexplanationofaspecificcommunityof
practicestructuredfortheprofessionaldevelopmentexperience.Thesectionconcludeswithan
explanationofhowthisspecificcommunityofpracticestructurehasthepotentialtosupportthe
developmentofteachertechnologyintegrationselfefficacy.
2.1TechnologyAcceptanceModel,TAM
Straub,2009arguesthattheintegrationofICTisacomplex,socialanddevelopmental
process(p.626).Onemodeldevelopedtoexplainwhyonewouldacceptorrejectaparticular
innovationistheTechnologyAcceptanceModel,TAM(Davis,1998).TheTAMtakesinto
accountrelationshipsbetweenperceivedusefulness,perceivedeaseofuse,attitudestowarduse
andbehavioralintentiontousetechnology.AlimitationofTAMisthelimitedinformation
providedwithoutspecificstoindividualdifferences(Straub,2009).Additionally,Davislink
betweenselfefficacyandperceivedeaseofuseisquestionable(Venkatesh,2000).Nonetheless,
TAMhasbeenusedtopredicttechnologyacceptanceinmanyeducationalsettings(Teo,2011).

2.2Knowledge
Oneframework,alsocategorizedasatypeofknowledge,foundtobehelpfulin
supportingteacherswitheffectiveICTintegrationistheTechnologicalPedagogicalContent
Knowledge(TPACK)theoreticalframework,(Mishra&Koehler,2006).TheTPACK
frameworkprovidesausefulstructureforplanningandthinkingabouttechnologyintegrationas
wellasacommonvocabularyforeducatorstodiscusstheknowledgetypesnecessaryfor
effectiveteachingwithtechnology.WithintheTPACKliterature,claimsaremadethateffective
teachingwithtechnologyoccurswhenteachersfirstaccountforthecontentstudentsmustlearn
thenselecttheappropriatepedagogicalmethodstopresentthecontent,followedbyselectionof
theICTtoolthatbestenhancesthelearningexperience(Harris&Hofer,2011).Additionally,
teachersshouldalsounderstandhowtheselectedtechnologymaymodifyboththecontentand
pedagogicalapproachselected.LiteratureaboutteacherdevelopmentofTPACKgenerally
mentionprofessionaldevelopmentexperiencewhereteacherslearntechnologybydesign
(Koehler&Mishra,2005)orthroughtheprocessofunitplanningincludingactivitytypes
(Harris&Hofer,2011).
Communitiesofpracticehaveshownpositiveimpactonteacherdevelopmentofnew
knowledge(Vescio,Ross&Adams,2007).ExistingliteratureondevelopingTPACKthrough
communitiesofpracticeappearsdifficulttofind.ConsiderationofhowTPACKdevelopment
maybesupportedthroughpresentingICTintegrationdilemmaswithinthecontextofa
communityofpracticemayprovidenewinsightsonteacheracceptanceofICTintegration.
2.3CommunitiesofPractice

Wengerssocialtheoryoflearningisbasedonfourpremises.First,wearesocialbeings,
second,knowledgeisamatterofcompetenceinrelationtowhatisvaluedbythecommunity,
third,knowingisanactivepursuitthroughengagingwiththeworldandfourth,learningisabout
makingmeaning(1998).Learningassocialparticipationistheprimaryfocus.Furthermore,
Wengerindicatesfourcomponentsofasocialtheoryoflearning.1)Meaning,learningas
experience.2)Practice,learningasdoing.3)Community,learningasbelonging,and4)Identity,
learningasbecoming(1998).
Onecommunityofpracticefoundsuccessfulinsupportingteacherdevelopmentis
CriticalFriendsGroups(CFG)(Berghoff,Blackwell&Wisehart,2011Costa&Kallick,1993
Vescio,Ross&Adams,2007).ACFGisagroupofeducatorswhoagreetoworktogether
throughtheuseofprotocolstodefineandproducestudentachievement.Eachgroupisfacilitated
byatrainedcoachskilledinprotocoluseandeffectiveconversationtohelpgroupmembers
focusonimprovedteaching(NationalSchoolReformFacultywebsite
http://www.nsrfharmony.org/).OneprotocolusedwithinaCFGistheConsultancyprotocol
designedbyGeneThompsonGrove,PaulaEvans,andFaithDunneaspartoftheirworkwiththe
CoalitionofEssentialSchoolsandtheAnnenbergInstituteforSchoolReform.Inthecontextof
participantpresenteddilemmas,thisprotocolprovidesappropriatestructurestocarefully
analyzecomplexproblemswithoutrushingtojudgment(McDonald,Mohr,Dichter&
McDonald,2013).SuccessfullyworkingthroughdilemmasrelatedtoICTintegrationinthe
contextofaCFGhasthepotentialtosupportteacherselfefficacydevelopment,thusfurther
contributingtoateachersacceptanceoftechnologyintegration.
2.4SelfEfficacy

Selfefficacyisthepersonalbeliefsonehasabouthis/hercapabilitiestolearnorachievea
taskatcertainlevels.Selfefficacycandictatechoiceoftasks.Thosethatareconfidentinthe
taskandhavehighefficacyaremorelikelytoengageinsuchtask(Schunk,2012).Selfefficacy
developsthroughsuccesswithchallengingtasksandobstaclesworkedthrough(Bandura,1997).
Ertmer&Ottenbreit(2010)claim,selfefficacymaybemoreimportantthanskillsand
knowledgeamongteacherswhoimplementtechnologyintheirclassrooms(p.261).Schunk,
2012remindsusthat[o]bservingsimilarotherssucceedraisesobserversselfefficacyand
motivatesthemtotrythetaskbecausetheybelievethatifotherscansucceed,theycanaswell
(KindleLoc3999of18869).WorkingcollaborativelywithICTintegrationdilemmassupports
teacherconfidencetocontinueworkingthroughwhatwasatfirstconsideredanobstacleor
challengingtaskbutmademanageablethroughcollaborationtosolvethegivendilemma.
BasedonextensivesearchingofonlineresearchlibrariesincludingGoogleScholar,the
literaturespecifictoCFGgroupsusingtheConsultancyprotocolonICTintegrationtopics
appearstobedifficulttofindasdoesresearchonhowCFGconsultancysessionswithafocusof
ICTintegrationdilemmasrelatestoteacheracceptanceoftechnology.
Because(a)ICTintegrationforteachingandlearningisexpectedintodaysclassrooms,
(b)TPACKhasbeenestablishedasaframeworkofknowledgetosupporteffectiveteachingwith
technology,(c)communitiesofpracticehavebeenfoundeffectivesettingsforteacher
developmentofnewknowledge,(d)workingthroughchallengingtasksandobstaclesdevelops
selfefficacyand(e)increasedknowledgeandselfefficacyimpactsteachertechnology
acceptance,itmakessensetoexploreteacherstechnologyacceptancelevelsbasedon

participationinacommunityofpracticefocusedaroundICTintegrationdilemmas.Mystudy
proposestoexplorethefollowing:
1.DoesteacherTPACKincreaseaftersixCFGconsultancyprotocolsessions(either
onlineorfacetoface)focusedonICTintegrationdilemmas?

2.Doteacherperceptionsoftechnologyacceptancechangepre/postaftersixCFG
consultancyprotocolsessions(eitheronlineorfacetoface)focusedonICTintegration
dilemmas?

3.HowdoesteacherTPACKandperceptionsoftechnologyacceptancecompare
betweenonlineandfacetofaceCFGsfocusedonICTintegrationdilemmas?

3.Method
3.1Participantsandprocedure
Detailsofparticipantsfortheproposedstudyareunknown.Generally,theprofessional
developmentopportunitywillbeofferedtoK12teacherswithinaruralregionofawesternstate.
Itisanticipatedthatapproximatelyfivetoseventeacherswillsignupforthefacetofaceclass
andsimilarnumbersfortheonlineclass.Anexplanationoftheproposedprofessional
developmentstructurefollows.
FacetoFacecomparedtoOnlineProfessionalDevelopmentExperience:

CriticalFriendsGroupsprovideastructureformemberstounderstandoneanothers
practiceatadeeperlevel,tooffercriticalanalysiswithoutjudgmentandtoencouragereflection.
Talkisattheheartofthiswork.Whenmembersofthegrouppresentateachingdilemmathe
onlyconsistentcontentofthemeetingistheprotocolconstraintsoftimelimitsfordiscussionand
turntakingforeachparticipanttosharehisorherthinkingrelatedtothepresenteddilemma.
ConsultancyProtocolFacetoFace
Theconsultancyprotocolisastructuredprocessforteacherstoconsideradilemma.
Outsideperspectivesareimportanttotheprocess.Dilemmasmayincludepuzzlingquestions
relatedtoprocessorproductthatthepresentingteachercantfigureout.Sometimesstudentwork
oradultworkispresentedtoillustratethedilemma.Oftenapresenteddilemmacrossesover
manypartsoftheeducationalprocess(NSRFResourcebookp.13).WithintheCFGcontext
thereareusuallybetween6and10members.Onememberisthepresentingteacherfora
particularsession.Thepresentingteacherframesadilemmapriortothemeeting.Thisframing
processinvolvesthinkingaboutadilemmawiththefollowingcriteria:somethingimportantto
thepresentingteacher,somethingthatisnotalreadyonitswaytobeingresolved,somethingthat
doesnotdependupongettingotherpeopletochange,forexample.Onceadilemmaisselected,
thepresentingteacherdoessomereflectivewritingaboutthedilemma,consideringwhythe
dilemmaisimportant,whatattemptsatpossiblesolutionshavebeenconsideredortried,and
whatisassumedtobetrueaboutthedilemma.
Nextthepresentingteacherframesafocusquestionaroundthegivendilemmaand
critiquesthefocusquestionusingthefollowingprompts:(1)Isthisquestionimportanttomy
practice?(2)Isthisquestionimportanttostudentlearning?(3)Isthisquestionimportantto

othersinmyprofession?(NSRFResourcebookp.14).Whenintroducingtheprepareddilemma
totheCFGthepresentingteachercomestothesessionwithadescriptionofthedilemmawithas
muchcontextualdetailneededtofullyillustratethecontext.Finally,thedescriptionconcludes
withaspecificquestioninwhichtheCFGwilladdress.TheConsultancyprotocolis
approximately50min.Sixstepscomprisetheprotocol.(1)Thepresentingteachergivesabrief
overviewofthedilemmaincluding5to10min.offocusedconversationonthedilemma.(2)The
groupasksclarifyingquestionsofthepresentingteacher,5min..(3)Thegroupasksprobing
questionsofthepresentingteacher,10min.(4)Thegrouptalkswitheachotheraboutthe
dilemmapresented(15min.).Thisconversationisframedwithsomeofthefollowingprompts:
Whatdidwehear?Whatdidntwehearthattheythinkmightberelevant?Whatassumptions
seemtobeoperating?Whatquestionsdoesthedilemmaraiseforus?Whatdowethinkaboutthe
dilemma?Whatmightwedoortryiffacedwithasimilardilemma?Duringthisconversationthe
presentingteacherlistensandtakesnotes.(5)Thepresentingteacherreflectsonwhathe/she
heardandisnowthinking.5min.(6)Finally,thefacilitatorleadsabriefdiscussionofthe
protocolprocess,independentofthedilemmacontentpresented,5min.
Thefacetofacegroupwillmeetonceeveryotherweektoworkthroughadilemma.The
weekinbetweenmeetingswillbetimeforthepresentingteachertopreparehis/herdilemma.
ConsultancyProtocolModificationsforOnlineClass
Withouttheoptionofsynchronouscollaborationasdescribedinthefacetofacesession,
theonlineclasswillfollowthesamerequirementsandstepswithtimelimitmodifications.The
consultancyprotocolwillfollowafourdaycycle.Day1)Presentingteacherwillpreparehis/her
dilemmafollowingthesamestepsasthefacetofacepresentingteacher.Usingadiscussion

boardformat,theprepareddilemmawillbepostedtothegroup.Day2)othergroupmembers
willhaveaddofdaytwotopostclarifyingquestionsrelatedtothedilemma.Thepresenting
teacherwillthenpostanswerstothesequestionswithindaytwo.Day3)Thegroupmembers
poseprobingquestionsrelatedtothepresenteddilemma.Thepresentingteacherdoesnotanswer
probingquestions,insteadhe/sheacknowledgesthereceiptofeachquestionwithathankyouor
otherappreciativeremark.Day4)Thegroupmembersengageindiscussion.Thisconversation
isframedwithsomeofthefollowingprompts:Whatdidwehear(read)?Whatdidntwehear
(read)thattheythinkmightberelevant?Whatassumptionsseemtobeoperating?What
questionsdoesthedilemmaraiseforus?Whatdowethinkaboutthedilemma?Whatmightwe
doortryiffacedwithasimilardilemma?Duringthisconversationthepresentingteacherlistens
(reads)andtakesnotes.Attheconclusionofthedayfourdiscussionthepresentingteacher
replieswithreflectionsonwhathe/sheheard(read)andisnowthinking.Finally,members
respondtoquestionsabouttheprotocolprocess,independentofthedilemmacontentpresented.
Thisfourdaycyclewillrepeateveryotherweek.Theweekinbetweeneachonline
discussionwillbetimeforthepresentingteachertopreparehis/herdilemma.
3.2Measures&ProposedDataAnalysis
UsingaTtest,investigationoftwooutcomevariables:1)perceptionsoftechnology
acceptancechangeovertime,and2)selfreportlevelsofTPACKpre/post,comparedbetween
onlinestudentsandfacetofacestudents.Twosurveys(pre/post)willbeusedtocollectdata.
1.

Teo(2011)ModifiedModelforTAM,TPBandUTAUT.

Chuttur(2009)writesareviewonTAMandhowtherearelimitations(3areas)andmaybeTAM
researchhasreachedasaturationpointandfutureresearchshouldbeaboutwaystoimprove

10

TAM.Teo,2011developedandtestedamodeltopredictteacherintentionstousetechnology
usingTAMandTPBandUTAUTtogether.Dependentvariableisintentiontousebecauseofits
closelinktoactualbehavior(Hu,Clark,&Ma,2003)ascitedinTeop.2434.Mystudywilluse
themodelpresentedbyTeo,2011whichincorporatesselfreportsurveyitemsrepresenting
TAM,TPB,andUTAUT.
2.

TPACKsurveySchmidt,D.A.,Baran,E.,Thompson,A.D.,Mishra,P.,Koehler,M.J.,

&Shin,T.S.(2009).
AnticipatedResults
InthepreTPACKsurveyIexpecttofindlowerlevelsofselfreportedconfidenceinthe
areasofTPACKandhigherlevelsofconfidencerelatedtopedagogicalknowledgeorcontent
knowledge.Iexpecttechnologytobelowerincomparisonandthecombinationofthese
knowledgesetsevenlower.Thiscynicallensisbasedonpreviousexperienceswithteachers
expectedtointegrateICTintotheirclassrooms.Similarly,Iexpectlowtechnologyacceptance
scoresinthepresurvey.Inthepostsurveys,IhopetoseeasignificantincreaseinTPACK
knowledgedevelopmentandahighacceptanceoftechnology.Ianticipatethefacetofacegroup
willhaveahigherdegreeofsatisfactionandscoresontheirpostsurveys.Iworrythattheonline
CFGwillbeconsideredtoolaboriousanddrawnout.Thatteacherswillhavelimitedengagement
becauseoftheasynchronousconstraintsgiventowhatwasdesignedtobesynchronous.
Discussion
In1994RitchieandWiburgstated,Technologysgreatestpowermaybethewayin
whichitsusecausesteachers,administrators,andstudentstorethinkteachingandlearning
(p.152).

11

ThisexploratorystudyhopestoidentifyhowTPACKdevelopmentandacceptanceof
technologyintegrationmaybesupportedduringaCFGconsultancyprotocolwhenadilemmais
presentedrelatedtoICTintegration.Ihopetosaythatwhenteachershaveachancetopresenta
dilemmarelatedtoICTintegrationinthecontextofacommunityofpracticestructuredbyCFG
protocols,teacherTPACKdevelopmentmaybesupported,thusaddingtotheliteraturearound
bothTPACKdevelopmentandCFGlearningcommunities.Ashortdiscussionoftwopossible
studyoutcomesfollows.Ifthedilemmaconversationsonlyfocusonconcernsrelatedto
infrastructure,time,classroommanagementandsupport,thismayshedlightontherealitiesof
whatteachersareexperiencingastheystruggletointegrateICTaccordingtothecurrent
educationmandates.Becomingawareoftheseconcernsmayhelpleadershipandprofessional
developmentprovidersreconsiderhowtheysupportteachersandconsiderwaystousethe
TPACKframeworkasatooltoaddressandovercomethesebarriers.Itmaynotbeenoughto
workwithteachersthroughlearningtechnologyintegrationbydesignorplanningwithactivity
types,orabouttheknowledgeneededforeffectiveICTintegration.IftheCFGsettingprovides
affectivesupportforteacherstoconfrontandworkthroughtheseinitialbarriers,anddevelop
theirselfefficacythismaybeanidealstartingplacetohelpdevelopincreasedteacher
technologyacceptance.
Ifpresenteddilemmasrelatetodevelopingrichlearningexperiencesthroughavailable
ICTforincreasedstudentlearning,theCFGcontextmaybeaplacetodeepenteacher
understandingsofTPACKanddevelopconfidenceintheirowntechnologicalpedagogical
contentknowledge.TheCFGsettingmaybeaplacetoreflectuponthelimitationsofsurface
knowledgeorisolatedTPACKknowledgecomparedtoacompletemergingoftheknowledge

12

typesformoreeffectiveICTintegration.TheCFGsettingmaybewherecollaborationonanICT
lessoncanberefinedforhigherstudentachievementcapacityorbetterdifferentiation.Ifthe
presenteddilemmasbecomeacombinationofdiscussingbarriersandexcitementaboutrichICT
lessons,theCFGcontextmaybecomeasafesettingforteacherstogrowandlearnatapace
uniquetoeachteacherastheycyclethroughtheconsultancyprotocol,presentingexperiences
bothpositiveandfrustrating,knowingthateachexperienceisanopportunityforgrowth.

13

References
Bandura,A.(1977).Selfefficacy:Towardaunifyingtheoryofbehavioralchange.Psychological
Review,84,191215.

Bandura,A.(2000).Cultivateselfefficacyforpersonalandorganizationalefffectiveness.InE.
A.Locke(Ed.),Handbookofprinciplesoforganizationbehavior.(pp.120136).Oxford,UK:
Blackwell.

Charmaz,K.,(2006).Constructinggroundedtheory:Apracticalguidethroughqualitative
analysis.London:Sage.

ChutturM.Y.(2009).OverviewoftheTechnologyAcceptanceModel:Origins,
developmentsandfuturedirections.IndianaUniversity,USA.Sprouts:WorkingPapers
onInformationSystems,9(37).

Costa,A.L.,&Kallick,B.(1993).Throughthelensofacriticalfriend.
EducationalLeadership
,
51(2),4951.

DarlingHammond,L.(2010).
Theflatworldandeducation:HowAmerica'scommitmentto
equity

willdetermineourfuture.
TeachersCollegePress.NewYork.

Ertmer,P.(1999).Addressingfirstandsecondorderbarrierstochange:Strategiesfor
technologyintegration.ETR&D,(47)4.4761.

Ertmer,P.&OttenbreitLeftwich,A.(2010).Teachertechnologychange:Howknowledge,
confidence,beliefs,andcultureintersect.JRTE(42)3,255284.

Harris,J.&Hofer,M.(2011Spring).Technologicalpedagogicalcontentknowledge
(TPACK)inaction:Adescriptivestudyofsecondaryteacherscurriculumbased,
technologyrelatedinstructionalplanning.
JournalofResearchonTechnologyinEducation
,
43
,
211219.

KoehlerM.,&MishraP.(2005).Whathappenswhenteachersdesigneducationaltechnology?
Thedevelopmentoftechnologicalpedagogicalcontentknowledge.J
ournalof
EducationalComputingResearch
,
32
,131152.

Lave,J.,&Wenger,E.(1991).
SituatedLearning:Legitimateperipheralparticipation.
New
York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
14


McDonald,J.P.,Mohr,N.,DichterA.,&McDonald,E.C.(2013).
Thepowerofprotocols:An
educatorsguidetobetterpractice
(3rded.).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Mishra,P.,&Koehler,M.,J.(2006).Technologicalpedagogicalcontentknowledge:A
frameworkforteacherknowledge.
TeachersCollegeRecord,108
,10171054.

NationalSchoolReformFacultyResourceBook.AdivisionofHarmonyEducationCenter.
BloomingtonIndiana.

NationalSchoolReformFaculty.2010.Availablefrom:

http://www.nsrfharmony.org
[Accessed
6July2014]

NCTEFrameworkfor21stCenturyCurriculumandAssessment,UpdatedFebruary2013,
AdoptedbytheNCTEExecutiveCommitteeNovember19,2008.
http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Positions/Framework_21stCent_Curr_Assess
ment.pdf

Prensky,M.
(2001).
DigitalNatives,DigitalImmigrants
.In
OntheHorizon
,October2001,9
(5).Lincoln:NCBUniversityPress.

Ritchie,D.,&Wiburg,K.(1994).Educationalvariablesinfluencingtechnologyintegration.
JournalofTechnologyandTeacherEducation
,2(2),143153.

Schmidt,D.A.,Baran,E.,Thompson,A.D.,Mishra,P.,Koehler,M.J.,&Shin,T.S.(2009).
Technologicalpedagogicalcontentknowledge(TPACK):Thedevelopmentandvalidationofan
assessmentinstrumentforpreserviceteachers.
JournalofResearchonComputinginEducation
,
42,123149.

Schunk,D.,(2010).Learningtheoriesaneducationalperspective.6thed.NewYork,NY:
PearsonPublicationInc.

Smith,J.A.(2008).
Qualitativepsychology:Apracticalguidetoresearchmethods,2nd

edition.
LosAngeles,CA:SAGEPublicationInc.

Straub,E.,(2009).Understandingtechnologyadoption:Theoryandfuturedirectionsfor
informallearning.
ReviewofEducationalResearch
,79(2),625649.

15

Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.(1990).
Basicsofqualitativeresearch:Groundedtheoryprocedures
and

techniques
.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Teo,T.(2010).Factorsinfluencingteachersintentiontousetechnology:Modeldevelopment
andtest.Computers&Education57.24322440.

Thomas,D.,&Brown,J.S.(2011).Anewcultureoflearning:Cultivatingtheimaginationfora
worldofconstantchange.Lexington,KY:Authors.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation,OfficeofEducationalTechnology.(2010).Transforming
Americaneducation:Learningpoweredbytechnology(ExecutiveSummary).
Washington,D.C.Retrievedfrom
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp2010/executivesummary

Vescio,V.,Ross,D.,&Adams,A.(2007).Areviewofresearchontheimpactofprofessional
learningcommunitiesonteachingpracticesandstudentlearning.
TeachingandTeacher
Education
,24(2008)8091.

Wagner,T.(2008).Theglobalachievementgap:whyevenourbestschoolsdon'tteachthenew
survivalskillsourchildrenneedandwhatwecandoaboutit.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Wenger,E.(1998).Communitiesofpractice:Learningasasocialsystem.

16